Anselmo bom dia!
Não é custoso monstar um Cluster (Storage caseiro) em PostgreSQL, Está em
discussão no forum da PostgreSQL a possíbilidade de usar o NFS (Network file
system) ou o NBD (Network Block Device), ambos consistem em "Mapear" a
partição de dados do PostgreSQL em uma OUTRA máquina com PostgreSQL a fim de
que os as duas máquinas trabalhem com a mesma base de dados.
Carlos Eduardo Smanioto
Infra Estrutura - Servidores e Segurança
Planae - Tecnologia da Informação
Fone/Fax +55 14 3224-3066 Ramal 207
www.planae.com.br
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe@qwest.net>
To: "Andrew Rawnsley" <ronz@ravensfield.com>
Cc: "Andrew Hammond" <ahammond@ca.afilias.info>;
<pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 12:46 AM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgres over Linux NBD or NFS
> On Mon, 2004-06-21 at 20:46, Andrew Rawnsley wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 2004, at 2:02 PM, Andrew Hammond wrote:
> >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > We're looking for an alternative to fiber-channel disk arrays for mass
> > > storage. One of the ideas that we're exploring would involve having
the
> > > cluster on an NFS mounted filesystem. Another technology we're looking
> > > at is the Linux NBD (Network Block Device).
> > >
> >
> > No idea about NBDs, but its generally accepted that running over NFS
> > would significantly
> > decrease reliability and performance, i.e. it would be a Bad Move (tm).
> > Not sure what you
> > think to gain. I sure wouldn't trust NFS with a production database.
> >
> > What exactly are you trying to gain, avoid, or do?
>
> I've gotten good performance over NFS using switched 100, then later
> gigabit. But I wouldn't trust it for diddly.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
