Re: Multiple backends on a single physical database - Mailing list pgsql-admin

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Multiple backends on a single physical database
Date
Msg-id 12601.1034440011@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Multiple backends on a single physical database  (Chris Miles <chris_pg002@psychofx.com>)
Responses Re: Multiple backends on a single physical database  (Ragnar Kjørstad <postgres@ragnark.vestdata.no>)
List pgsql-admin
Chris Miles <chris_pg002@psychofx.com> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 11:11:53AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Good question.  It is my understanding that fsync, locking, and the
>> order of writes is not guaranteed in NFS like it is for local file
>> systems.  I question how well it would handle any of the failure modes
>> that local file systems can withstand.

AFAIR, we do not use file locking, so the unreliability of NFS locks
doesn't hurt us.  What I'd be concerned about is fsync() and sync()
semantics, namely whether data is down to disk when we think it is.

> Nobody is going to make such a guarantee with postgresql (are they?)
> so consider us a case study for such a setup.  So far, so good, even
> under heavy load testing.

Load testing is not the issue here; crash testing is.  Try pulling the
power plug on your NFS box while the database is under load.  If you
can do that repeatedly and not suffer database corruption, then maybe
you have a safe setup.  Be sure to try the case of NFS crash immediately
after a CHECKPOINT.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-admin by date:

Previous
From: Chris Miles
Date:
Subject: Re: Multiple backends on a single physical database
Next
From: Ragnar Kjørstad
Date:
Subject: Re: Multiple backends on a single physical database