On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:55:24 -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 07:35:42PM -0700, Steve Wampler wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 10:06:58PM -0400, Ketema Harris wrote:
>> > I was wondering if there were any performance issues with having a data
>> > directory that was an nfs moun
So do NAS's
Dan
On Apr 27, 2006, at 6:42 AM, Ketema Harris wrote:
The SAN has the snapshot capability.
On 4/27/06 9:31 AM, "Bruno Wolff III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 09:06:48 -0400,
Ketema Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, your right, I meant not have to do
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 12:50:16PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Yes, but some dedicated storage devices actually provide good
performance with RAID5. Most simpler solutions give pretty abysmal write
performance.
dedicated storage device != SAN != NAS. You can get good performance in
a dedicated
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 10:04:19AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> >>redundancy, expandability
> >What I mean by these stupid flavor words is:
> >Redundancy : raid 5.
>
> You can get that without external storage.
Yes, but some dedicated storage devices actually provide good
performance with RAID5
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 09:41:21AM -0400, Ketema Harris wrote:
No, backups are completely unrelated to your storage type; you need them
either way.
Please another post. I meant the storage would do the back ups.
Which isn't a backup. Even expensive storage arrays can break or burn
down.
re
The SAN has the snapshot capability.
On 4/27/06 9:31 AM, "Bruno Wolff III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 09:06:48 -0400,
> Ketema Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes, your right, I meant not have to do the backups from the db server
>> itself. I can do that within
First, I appreciate all of your input.
>No, backups are completely unrelated to your storage type; you need them
> either way.
Please another post. I meant the storage would do the back ups.
>redundancy, expandability
What I mean by these stupid flavor words is:
Redundancy : raid 5.
Expandability
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 09:06:48 -0400,
Ketema Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, your right, I meant not have to do the backups from the db server
> itself. I can do that within the storage device now, by allocating space
> for it, and letting the device copy the data files on some period
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 08:57:51AM -0400, Ketema Harris wrote:
OK. My thought process was that having non local storage as say a big raid
5 san ( I am talking 5 TB with expansion capability up to 10 )
That's two disk trays for a cheap slow array. (Versus a more expensive
solution with more s
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 08:57:51AM -0400, Ketema Harris wrote:
> OK. My thought process was that having non local storage as say a big raid
> 5 san ( I am talking 5 TB with expansion capability up to 10 ) would allow
> me to have redundancy, expandability, and hopefully still retain decent
> perfo
Yes, your right, I meant not have to do the backups from the db server
itself. I can do that within the storage device now, by allocating space
for it, and letting the device copy the data files on some periodic basis.
On 4/27/06 9:05 AM, "Bruno Wolff III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, A
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 08:57:51 -0400,
Ketema Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> performance from the db. I also would hopefully then not have to do
> periodic backups from the db server to some other type of storage. Is this
> not a good idea? How bad of a performance hit are we talking abo
OK. My thought process was that having non local storage as say a big raid
5 san ( I am talking 5 TB with expansion capability up to 10 ) would allow
me to have redundancy, expandability, and hopefully still retain decent
performance from the db. I also would hopefully then not have to do
periodi
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 08:38:55AM -0400, Ketema Harris wrote:
I am looking for the best solution to have a large amount of disk storage
attached to my PostgreSQL 8.1 server.
What other options/protocols are there to get high performance and data
integrity while having the benefit of not hav
I am looking for the best solution to have a large amount of disk storage
attached to my PostgreSQL 8.1 server. I was thinking of having a san or nas
attached device be mounted by the pg server over nfs, hence the question
about nfs performance. What other options/protocols are there to get high
We have gotten very good performance from netapp and postgres 7.4.11 .
I was able to push about 100MB/s over gigE, but that was limited by
our netapp.
DAS will generally always be faster, but if for example you have 2
disks vs. 100 NFS mounted ,NFS will be faster.
NFS is very reliable and
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 07:35:42PM -0700, Steve Wampler wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 10:06:58PM -0400, Ketema Harris wrote:
> > I was wondering if there were any performance issues with having a data
> > directory that was an nfs mounted drive? Say like a SAN or NAS device? Has
> > anyone done
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 10:06:58PM -0400, Ketema Harris wrote:
> I was wondering if there were any performance issues with having a data
> directory that was an nfs mounted drive? Say like a SAN or NAS device? Has
> anyone done this before?
My understanding is that NFS is pretty poor in performa
18 matches
Mail list logo
