On 05/27/2014 02:06 PM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> I just learned that NFS does not use a file system cache on the client side.
>
> On the other hand, PostgreSQL relies on the file system cache for performance,
> because beyond a certain amount of shared_buffers performance will suffer.
>
> Together these things seem to indicate that you cannot get good performance
> with a large database over NFS since you can leverage memory speed.
>
> Now I wonder if there are any remedies (CacheFS?) and what experiences
> people have made with the performance of large databases over NFS.
I have no personal experience with NFS, but sounds like a
higher-than-usual shared_buffers value would be good.
- Heikki
