elein wrote:
> I thought NFS was not recommended. Did I misunderstand this
> or is there some kind of limitation to using different kinds(?)
> of NFS.
I've seen that sentiment voiced over and over. And a few years ago, I
would have joined in.
But the fact is *many* large Oracle installations now run over NFS to
NAS. When it was first suggested to us, our Oracle DBAs said "no way".
But when we were forced to try it due to hardware failure (on our
attached fibre channel array) a few years ago, we found it to be
*faster* than the locally attached array, much more flexible, and very
robust. Our Oracle DBAs would never give it up at this point.
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.
Joe
