Re: PG over NFS
От | Yang |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PG over NFS |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 28917-80087@sneakemail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | PG over NFS ("Yang" <jkfe7q002@sneakemail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: PG over NFS
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On 3/26/07, A.M. agentm-at-themactionfaction.com |postgresql| <...> wrote: > > On Mar 26, 2007, at 19:29 , Yang wrote: > > > On 3/26/07, Hannes Dorbath light-at-theendofthetunnel.de |postgresql| > > <...> wrote: > >> There is GFS2, OCFS, DRBD, ENBD, iSCSI, AoE and a ton of other > >> technologies. What on earth is the point in trying to use a DBMS over > >> NFS? :) > >> > >> In case it's just for the fun of it, maybe consider: > >> - davfs2 > >> - curlftpfs > >> > >> > However, I am primarily concerned with safety/recoverability (on > >> sudden power loss); > >> > >> Well then.. forget about NFS :) > > > > Could you offer any explanation as to why? > > > >> What about various replication solutions > >> like slony, 8.2 warm standby log shipping, mammoth replicator? > > > > The environments involve two small devices - one with a flash disk > > (the NFS server), and a slave which network-boots off that. Hence > > these suggestions don't address the problem. (Would all the > > alternative protocols listed at the top be able to coexist with the > > described environment? Both devices must be able to boot into Linux.) > > Since you're booting from the NFS server, it would make more sense to > have your boot process start a postgresql instance from a copy of the > data directory instead of over NFS, no? Certainly, that way, you can > have multiple instances booted and running. Do you need to sync back > to the NFS server? The second device has no non-volatile storage. (Sorry I should've explicitly stated this.) Yang > > Cheers, > M >
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: