On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 04:12, Rafael Martinez, Guerrero wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 10:25, Greg Stark wrote:
> > Using TCP with NFS is only really helpful when you have a high latency high
> > bandwidth link which isn't going to be a terribly positive environment for
> > postgres.
> >
>
> Well, having a protocol that by definition says that datagrams may
> arrive out of order or go missing without notice does not sound like a
> good thing to have a database running on.
>
> [.......]
> > environment. But the others shouldn't be terribly relevant -- hell, bg only
> > affects the actual mount operation.
> >
>
> The result of using cut & paste ;) not directly relevant to postgres but
> nice to have when mounting the nfs directory.
>
> > While I'm leery about recommending any network filesystem for anything that
> > depends on the filesystem as heavily as a database, of all the network
> > filesystems NFS takes the most care to maintain solid semantics. The main
> > problem is that people are always looking for new and interesting ways to
> > defeat those semantics with options like soft mounts. Certainly I can't agree
> > with "anything is better than NFS", what would you recommend, samba?
> >
>
> Samba? :-) not at all, it was a way of saying how bad idea is to run a
> database via NFS if you want reliability and performance. Not everybody
> agrees with this, but well, they can do what the want with their data.
Given my experiences with Linux, NFS, and Samba in the past, I would say
Samba is a MUCH better choice for network file systems under Linux than
NFS, especially if you're using different kernel versions on the systems
and what not. It seems that if you find the right kernel on both sides
of a Linux - Linux NFS system, then it can be very stable. But that's
only a small percentage of the time. Most of the time, I've had serious
issues with Linux and NFS, and I'm a big proponent of Linux in general.
But the NFS implementation has serious issues.