On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 15:56 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
> Bryan Keller wrote:
> > It sounds like NFS is a viable solution nowadays. I a still going to shoot
> > for using iSCSI, given it is a block-level protocol rather than file-level,
> > it seems to me it would be better suited to database I/O.
>
Bryan Keller wrote:
It sounds like NFS is a viable solution nowadays. I a still going to shoot for
using iSCSI, given it is a block-level protocol rather than file-level, it
seems to me it would be better suited to database I/O.
Please digest carefully where Joe Conway pointed out that it
Bryan Keller wrote:
> I am considering running a Postgres with the database hosted on a NAS
> via NFS. I have read a few things on the Web saying this is not
> recommended, as it will be slow and could potentially cause data
> corruption.
>
> My goal is to have the database on a shared filesystem
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Bryan Keller wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. It sounds like NFS is a viable solution nowadays. I
> a still going to shoot for using iSCSI, given it is a block-level protocol
> rather than file-level, it seems to me it would be better suited to database
> I/O.
Thanks for the feedback. It sounds like NFS is a viable solution nowadays. I a
still going to shoot for using iSCSI, given it is a block-level protocol rather
than file-level, it seems to me it would be better suited to database I/O.
On Feb 14, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Stuart Bishop wrote:
> On Thu, F
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Bryan Keller wrote:
> I am considering running a Postgres with the database hosted on a NAS via
> NFS. I have read a few things on the Web saying this is not recommended, as
> it will be slow and could potentially cause data corruption.
Its not recommended if y
On 2/11/11 9:09 AM, Frederiko Costa wrote:
> Paying close attention to details to avoid any corruption issue in a
> shared environment, I don't think it would be a problem going for NFS.
FYI -- beware of NFS related kernel bugs in recent Red Hat 5.x kernels:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-h
Hello,
I have had the experience of running a database hosted on a dedicated
NFS share. I have not had any problems. I would rather have this
solution than having to use SAN, due to the flexibility I would get
plus the less overhead in management.
I recommend that you skim through a paper from Or
I am considering running a Postgres with the database hosted on a NAS via NFS.
I have read a few things on the Web saying this is not recommended, as it will
be slow and cause data corruption.
My goal is to have the database on a shared filesystem so in case of server
failure, I can start up a
On 02/09/2011 03:49 PM, Jim Mlodgenski wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Bryan Keller wrote:
I am considering running a Postgres with the database hosted on a NAS via NFS.
I have read a few things on the Web saying this is not recommended, as it will
be slow and could potentially cause d
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Bryan Keller wrote:
> I am considering running a Postgres with the database hosted on a NAS via
> NFS. I have read a few things on the Web saying this is not recommended, as
> it will be slow and could potentially cause data corruption.
>
> My goal is to have the
: [ADMIN] Postgres on NAS/NFS
I am considering running a Postgres with the database hosted on a NAS via
NFS. I have read a few things on the Web saying this is not recommended, as
it will be slow and could potentially cause data corruption.
My goal is to have the database on a shared filesystem so
I am considering running a Postgres with the database hosted on a NAS via NFS.
I have read a few things on the Web saying this is not recommended, as it will
be slow and could potentially cause data corruption.
My goal is to have the database on a shared filesystem so in case of server
failure,
13 matches
Mail list logo
