On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 20/08/10 17:01, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas >> <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 20/08/10 16:30, Robert Haas wrote: >>>> >>>> I really like the idea of trying to use network-based storage in some >>>> way. Gigabit Ethernet is a big I/O channel. >>> >>> NFS? >> >> I don't particularly trust NFS to be either reliable or performant for >> database use. Do you? > > Depends on the implementation, I guess, but the point is that there's a > bazillion network-based filesystems with different tradeoffs out there > already. It seems unlikely that you could outperform them with something > built into PostgreSQL. > > To put it other way, if you built network-based storage into PostgreSQL, > what PostgreSQL-specific knowledge could you take advanage of to make it > more performant/reliable? If there isn't any, I don't see the point.
PostgreSQL-specific knowledge? Probably not. But: - Setting up NFS is very easy to do wrong. I bet if you find 100 people who are running PG over NFS, 80 of them have a wrong setting somewhere that's compromising their data integrity. - NFS, like all other solutions in this area, is platform-specific, and thus not available everywhere. - We don't need a general-purpose network file system - we need something very specific, which should therefore be able to be done in a more lightweight fashion. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers