>From what I understand; - Read-Only data - Data doesn't change frequently - Central repository for data - Network latency causing issues
My two cents on this is to keep a database revision ID kicking around and do a SQLite backup of the remote data to a local storage medium. At application launch, check the local version of the database, then check the NFS version, and if there is a mismatch or a local copy doesn't exist, have the application ask (Or force if no local copy exists) to copy the data from remote to local, then read data from the local source. This will be a bit of a PITA if you're talking gigabytes of storage on a saturated 100mbit network or if drive space is limited. (I love my quiet GigE network) If you ever make a change to the database of relevance, update the database ID on the NFS version and any new client connections will do the version validation and (ask to...) pull the required changes when required. I may love my GigE network, but just two days ago I turned off a network switch accidentally and lost all communication to my server unintentionally. Stupid things like that could put a halt on your production environment. If you keep things local, the network isn't going to matter (Unless your app also talks to other network appliances/devices/etc via the affected network) and the gain is that you're also going to increase the speed of your app. Depending on database size and memory amount, you could also increase the speed of database transactions by not only copying the data from the remote storage to a local drive, but go a step further and do another backup from local drive to RAM by doing a backup to [ :memory: ] and then access what is in memory. The downside of that, again depending on size of the database, is not only memory constraint but initial load time of the application considering NAS->Local->Memory. On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Peng Yu <pengyu.ut at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I know that sqlite3 is not recommended to be used on NFS. But I only > use sqlite3 for read only (the only time that I write is to load the > initial data to the data base). With this restriction, NFS should be > fine as the storage since no file locking is needed. > > I remember that sqlite3 on NFS is significantly slower than on a local > disk (a few times slower when I tested a few years ago). > > I am wondering for my limited usage scenario, is it possible to make > sqlite3 on NFS as fast as sqlite3 on local storage (such as disable > file locking). Thanks. > > -- > Regards, > Peng > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users >
