Michael Paesold wrote: > Giles Lean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Mind you NFS users are currently entirely unprotected from someone >>starting a postmaster on a different NFS client using the same data >>directory right now, which file locking would prevent. So there is >>some win for NFS users as well as local filesystem users. (Anyone >>using NFS care to put their hand up? Maybe nobody does?) >> >>Is the benefit of better local filesystem behaviour plus multiple >>client protection for NFS users who have file locking enough to >>outweigh the drawbacks? My two cents says it is, but my two cents are >>worth approximately USD$0.01, which is to say not very much ... > > > Well, I am going to do some tests with postgresql and our netapp > filer later in October. If that setup proves to work fast and reliable > I would also be interested in such a locking. I don't care about > the feature if I find the postgresql/NFS/netapp-filer setup to be > unreliable or bad performing. >
We have multiple Oracle databases running over NFS from an HPUX server to a netapp and have been pleased with the performance overall. It does require some tuning to get it right, and it hasn't been entirely without issues, but I don't see us going back to local storage. We also just recently set up a Linux box running Oracle against an NFS mounted netapp. Soon I'll be adding Postgres on the same machine, initially using locally attached storage, but at some point I may need to shift to the netapp due to data volume. If you do try Postgres on the netapp, please post your results/experience and I'll do the same. Anyway, I guess I qualify as interested in an NFS safe locking method. Joe ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
