On 3/26/07, A.M. agentm-at-themactionfaction.com |postgresql|
<...> wrote:
>
> On Mar 26, 2007, at 19:29 , Yang wrote:
>
> > On 3/26/07, Hannes Dorbath light-at-theendofthetunnel.de |postgresql|
> > <...> wrote:
> >> There is GFS2, OCFS, DRBD, ENBD, iSCSI, AoE and a ton of other
> >> technologies. What on earth is the point in trying to use a DBMS over
> >> NFS? :)
> >>
> >> In case it's just for the fun of it, maybe consider:
> >> - davfs2
> >> - curlftpfs
> >>
> >> > However, I am primarily concerned with safety/recoverability (on
> >> sudden power loss);
> >>
> >> Well then.. forget about NFS :)
> >
> > Could you offer any explanation as to why?
> >
> >> What about various replication solutions
> >> like slony, 8.2 warm standby log shipping, mammoth replicator?
> >
> > The environments involve two small devices - one with a flash disk
> > (the NFS server), and a slave which network-boots off that. Hence
> > these suggestions don't address the problem. (Would all the
> > alternative protocols listed at the top be able to coexist with the
> > described environment? Both devices must be able to boot into Linux.)
>
> Since you're booting from the NFS server, it would make more sense to
> have your boot process start a postgresql instance from a copy of the
> data directory instead of over NFS, no? Certainly, that way, you can
> have multiple instances booted and running. Do you need to sync back
> to the NFS server?
The second device has no non-volatile storage. (Sorry I should've
explicitly stated this.)
Yang
>
> Cheers,
> M
>
