On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 15:07, Joe Conway wrote:
> I suppose there *may* be some fundamental technical difference that
> makes Postgres less reliable than Oracle when using NFS, but I'm not
> sure what it would be -- if anyone knows of one, please speak up ;-).
> Early testing on NFS mounted NAS has been favorable, i.e. at least the
> data does not get corrupted as it did on the SAN. And like I said, our
> only other option appears to be spreading the data over multiple
> volumes, which is a route we'd rather not take.
I have been doing a *lot* of testing of PG 7.4 over NFS with a couple of
EMC Celerras and have had excellent results thus far.
My best NFS results were within about 15% of the speed of my best SAN
results.
However, my results changed drastically under the 2.6 kernel, when the
NFS results stayed about the same as 2.4, but the SAN jumped about 50%
in transactions per second.
