Michael Paesold wrote:
> Giles Lean <giles@nemeton.com.au> wrote:
>>Mind you NFS users are currently entirely unprotected from someone
>>starting a postmaster on a different NFS client using the same data
>>directory right now, which file locking would prevent. So there is
>>some win for NFS users as well as local filesystem users. (Anyone
>>using NFS care to put their hand up? Maybe nobody does?)
>>
>>Is the benefit of better local filesystem behaviour plus multiple
>>client protection for NFS users who have file locking enough to
>>outweigh the drawbacks? My two cents says it is, but my two cents are
>>worth approximately USD$0.01, which is to say not very much ...
>
>
> Well, I am going to do some tests with postgresql and our netapp
> filer later in October. If that setup proves to work fast and reliable
> I would also be interested in such a locking. I don't care about
> the feature if I find the postgresql/NFS/netapp-filer setup to be
> unreliable or bad performing.
>
We have multiple Oracle databases running over NFS from an HPUX server to a
netapp and have been pleased with the performance overall. It does require
some tuning to get it right, and it hasn't been entirely without issues, but I
don't see us going back to local storage. We also just recently set up a Linux
box running Oracle against an NFS mounted netapp. Soon I'll be adding Postgres
on the same machine, initially using locally attached storage, but at some
point I may need to shift to the netapp due to data volume.
If you do try Postgres on the netapp, please post your results/experience and
I'll do the same.
Anyway, I guess I qualify as interested in an NFS safe locking method.
Joe
