Thread: Postgres on Netapp
Hi There, We are considering to use NetApp filer for a highly busy 24*7 postgres database and the reason we chose netapp, mostly being the "snapshot" functionality for backing up database online. The filer would be mounted on a rh linux server (7.3), 4g RAM, dual cpu with a dedicated card for filer. I'd appreciate if anyone could share your experience in configuring things on the filer for optimal performance or any recomendataion that i should be aware of. Thanks, Shankar __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
--On Monday, January 12, 2004 13:45:45 -0800 Shankar K <shan0075@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi There, > > We are considering to use NetApp filer for a highly > busy 24*7 postgres database and the reason we chose > netapp, mostly being the "snapshot" functionality for > backing up database online. The filer would be mounted > on a rh linux server (7.3), 4g RAM, dual cpu with a > dedicated card for filer. > > I'd appreciate if anyone could share your experience > in configuring things on the filer for optimal > performance or any recomendataion that i should be > aware of. I run a (not very busy) PG cluster on a NetAPP. It seems to do just fine. The issue is the speed of the network connection. In my case it's only FastEthernet (100BaseTX). If it's very busy, you may need to look at GigE. LER > > Thanks, > Shankar > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
Attachment
> I'd appreciate if anyone could share your experience > in configuring things on the filer for optimal > performance or any recomendataion that i should be > aware of. Netapps are great things. Just beware that you'll be using NFS, and NFS drivers on many operating systems have been known to be buggy in some way or another which may cause dataloss or corruption during extreme conditions (power failure, network interruption, etc.) If you can configure it as a SAN, you may find it works out better.
On January 16, 2004 11:53 am, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> --On Monday, January 12, 2004 13:45:45 -0800 Shankar K <shan0075@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > We are considering to use NetApp filer for a highly
> > busy 24*7 postgres database and the reason we chose
> I run a (not very busy) PG cluster on a NetAPP.
I run a very busy PG installation on one.
> It seems to do just fine.
Ditto.
> The issue is the speed of the network connection. In my case it's only
> FastEthernet (100BaseTX). If it's very busy, you may need to look
> at GigE.
With the price of GigE adapters I wouldn't consider anything else.
I have a huge database that takes about an hour to copy. The netApp snapshot
feature is very nice because I can get a "moment in time" image of the
database. Even though I can't run from the snapshot because it is read only
(*) and PG needs to write to files just to open the database, I can copy it
and get a runnable version of the DB. If I copy directly from the original I
can get many changes while copying and wind up with a copy that will not run.
(*): It would be nice if PG had a flag that allowed a database to be opened in
read only mode without touching anything in the directory.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: > With the price of GigE adapters I wouldn't consider anything else. > > I have a huge database that takes about an hour to copy. The netApp snapshot > feature is very nice because I can get a "moment in time" image of the > database. Even though I can't run from the snapshot because it is read only > (*) and PG needs to write to files just to open the database, I can copy it > and get a runnable version of the DB. If I copy directly from the original I > can get many changes while copying and wind up with a copy that will not run. > > (*): It would be nice if PG had a flag that allowed a database to be opened in > read only mode without touching anything in the directory. PostgreSQL has to read the WAL to adjust the contents of the flat file on startup in such a setup, so I don't see how we could do it read-only. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073