On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 08:08:10PM -0500, tc lewis wrote:
> hmm, i suppose. i guess the filesystem wouldn't need to understand the
> logic of the underlying device. not sure. i don't think i've ever been
> presented with a storage array that does what you're saying (not saying
> they don't exist).
At least Sun has had one for years.
But I think the Netapp would still out perform, NFS wise, a generic server
performing only NFS services. Just because of it's tweaked stuff,
including it's local file system.
I've heard of people running good sized Usenet farms against Netapp and
quite happy with the performance.
If it can keep usenet junkies happy, I would think that, performance wise,
it will do ok for database. I would think the client performance it more
critical in this case, than anything else.
Another point of concern is state of the system when a backup is taken.
Other threads pointed out the concern about backing up files during the
middle of transactions and the like. Better if able to ask the LVM layer
(or whatever) to take a snapshot, and then back THAT up. Does netapp offer
such facilities? (I would imagine so, but not positive). If not, one may
still have to do a pg_dump just to maintain stable backups.
mrc
--
Mike Castle Life is like a clock: You can work constantly
dalgoda@ix.netcom.com and be right all the time, or not work at all
www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/ and be right at least twice a day. -- mrc
We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan. -- Watchmen