Re: Postgres on NAS/NFS
От | Anibal David Acosta |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Postgres on NAS/NFS |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 001c01cbc894$bfe43470$3fac9d50$@devshock.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Postgres on NAS/NFS (Bryan Keller <bryanck@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-admin |
I think SAN is better for block access instead of file access (NAS) -----Mensaje original----- De: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org] En nombre de Bryan Keller Enviado el: miércoles, 09 de febrero de 2011 05:00 p.m. Para: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Asunto: [ADMIN] Postgres on NAS/NFS I am considering running a Postgres with the database hosted on a NAS via NFS. I have read a few things on the Web saying this is not recommended, as it will be slow and could potentially cause data corruption. My goal is to have the database on a shared filesystem so in case of server failure, I can start up a standby Postgres server and point it to the same database. I would rather not use a SAN as I have heard horror stories about managing them. Also they are extremely expensive. A DAS would be another option, but I'm not sure if a DAS can be connected to two servers for server failover purposes. Currently I am considering not using a shared filesystem and instead using replication between the two servers. I am wondering what solutions have others used for my active-passive Postgres failover scenario? Is a NAS still not a recommended approach? Will a DAS work? Or is replication the best approach? -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: