On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 6:26 PM, anj patnaik <patna73@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. I have setup a second Linux VM (running RHEL 5.11) and Postgres 9.4. I ran some insertions today from a client running on Windows. The client does a loop of 30 updates.I am seeing about 10-20% increase in latency in the case where DB is on NFS (over TCP) compared to directly on disk.The other machine I am using to compare is running RHEL 6.5 and Postgres 9.4.Are there any specific tests that are recommended to test that postgres over NFS works well?I am planning on doing a few large data inserts and fetches.With the little testing, the DB over NFS appears fine.
Don't do it. Period. I've used 4 big-vendor appliances with NFS as well as my own server. With maybe 3 exceptions, most of the 'total-data-loss' scenarios I've dealt with regarding transactional data was due to NFS.
--Scott
Thanks for any feedback.On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:anj patnaik wrote:
> Can anyone advise if there are problems running postgres over NFS mounted partitions?
>
> I do need reliability and high speed.
I have got the advice not to use NFS from a number of people who should know,
but there are also knowledgable people who use PostgreSQL with NFS.
You need hard foreground mounts, and you need an NFS server that is
guaranteed not to lose data that the client has synced to disk.
You should probably only consider storage systems that directly
support NFS, and you should run performance and reliability tests.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
