Re: ERROR: unexpected data beyond EOF in block XXXXX of relation "file"

Okay, I see the maturity level is too low here.  I'll take this elsewhere.
If anyone has a similar problem and would like to know the status please
email me.



David Fetter wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:51:49AM -0700, austijc wrote:
>>
>> That's going to be a problem for the continued viability of
>> Postgres.
>
> Funny, I thought running a DBMS over a known-unreliable storage system
> was a problem for the continued viability of Oracle.  When, not if,
> people lose enough data to this silliness, they'll be thinking hard
> about how to get Oracle out and something reliable in.
>
>> Clustered systems using a NAS for data is a pretty common
>> configuration these days.  Oracle specifically supports it and even
>> complains if your NFS mount options are not correct.   Our Oracle
>> DBs run great in this same configuration and are a good 10-20 times
>> faster than the local disk performance along with the quick
>> take-over capability if a system goes belly up.
>
> Oracle stores more state to the disk than PostgreSQL does, which has
> significant down sides.  There are more effective ways of handling
> uptime requirements than jamming NFS into the picture.  Maybe it's
> just my failure of imagination, but I can't think of a *less*
> effective one.
>
>> I'll try to isolate this problem with a simple C program to tell me
>> what software layer to look at.  Hopefully it's just a configuration
>> issue.
>
> It's not.  The issue is that NFS is broken garbage from a DBMS, and,
> it's pretty easy to argue, just about any other perspective.
>
> Cheers,
> David.
>
>>
>> Tom Lane-2 wrote:
>> >
>> > austijc <jaustin@jasononthe.net> writes:
>> >> The question is can anyone more familiar with this tell me what's
>> going
>> >> on
>> >> here?  I don't know if this is a Postgres, Sun, or NetApp issue.
>> Could
>> >> it
>> >> be a work around for an old Linux bug causing an issue with acceptable
>> >> behavior of the NetApp device?
>> >
>> > People who try to run databases over NFS usually regret it eventually
>> ;-)
>> >
>> > All I can say is that this error message has never before been reported
>> > by anyone who wasn't exposed to that lseek-inconsistency kernel bug.
>> > I am not finding it too hard to believe that NFS might be vulnerable to
>> > similar misbehavior.
>> >
>> >             regards, tom lane
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
>> > To make changes to your subscription:
>> > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>>
http://www.nabble.com/ERROR%3A--unexpected-data-beyond-EOF-in-block-XXXXX-of-relation-%22file%22-tp19680438p19713228.html
>> Sent from the PostgreSQL - bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
>
> --
> David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
> Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
> Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
>
> Remember to vote!
> Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
>
>

--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/ERROR%3A--unexpected-data-beyond-EOF-in-block-XXXXX-of-relation-%22file%22-tp19680438p19728120.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com.