On 2/19/2017 8:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> (FWIW, a lot of Postgres hackers consider NFS to be too unreliable to
> keep a database on. NFS is great, don't get me wrong, but it's got a
> very long track record of intermittent weirdness like this. If you're
> trying to get from three-nines to five-nines reliability, keeping your
> data on NFS is a serious stumbling block to getting there.)
For what its worth (about $0.02), I remember Oracle saying DO NOT USE
NFS for database storage, unless it was a NetApp Filer with a specific
set of options configured, that no other configuration was considered
robust enough for database storage.
--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
