On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 6:26 PM, anj patnaik <patn...@gmail.com> 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.a...@wien.gv.at> > 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 >> > >
