On 02/09/2011 03:49 PM, Jim Mlodgenski wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Bryan Keller<bryanck@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am considering running a Postgres with the database hosted on a NAS via NFS. I have read a few things on the Web
sayingthis is not recommended, as it will be slow and could potentially cause data corruption.
>>
>> My goal is to have the database on a shared filesystem so in case of server failure, I can start up a standby
Postgresserver and point it to the same database. I would rather not use a SAN as I have heard horror stories about
managingthem. Also they are extremely expensive. A DAS would be another option, but I'm not sure if a DAS can be
connectedto two servers for server failover purposes.
>>
>> Currently I am considering not using a shared filesystem and instead using replication between the two servers.
>>
>> I am wondering what solutions have others used for my active-passive Postgres failover scenario? Is a NAS still not
arecommended approach? Will a DAS work? Or is replication the best approach?
> DAS will absolutely work. Just be careful to fence things properly so
> that you don't end up with 2 servers trying to start the data
> directory at the same time. It will lead to some pretty nasty
> corruption.
>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
>>
Jim is right, be very careful to fence things properly. Also, depending
on how the NAS/DAS is mounted to the servers you may need to tweak
permissions. I've seen NFS scenarios where the postgres user on the
secondary machine has a different UID than the one on the source box and
the result was a mount point owned by nobody:nobody which of course
disallows postgres from accessing the file system.
--
---------------------------------------------
Kevin Kempter - Constent State
A PostgreSQL Professional Services Company
www.consistentstate.com
---------------------------------------------