-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/user-permissions-tf2780209.html#a7760187 Sent from the Network Appliance - Toasters mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0' Sender: owner-toasters@mathworks.com Precedence: bulk I've done some benchmarks with this, and from what I can tell, nothing beats local disk for mysql. I did some preliminary test with iscsi, and that seemed better, but there's still a lot of overhead, that keep it from being super speedy. I didn't have the opportunity to try FCP. There's always the angle that the filer is more stable, and highly available then local storage. =) -Blake On 12/8/06, Chris Shenton Chris.Shenton@nasa.gov wrote: > We'd like to have our database storage resident on a Filer with > NFS. Do any of you have experience or insight into this for MySQL or > PostgreSQL? I understand Oracle's happy to work like this but my > google searches seem to indicate it's a bad idea to use NFS storage > for PostgreSQL or MySQL. > > Thanks. > > http://www.postgresql.org/files/documentation/books/aw_pgsql/hw_performance/... > > NFS and other remote file systems are not recommended for use by > POSTGRESQL. NFS does not have the same file system semantics as a > local file system, and these inconsistencies can cause data > reliability or crash recovery problems. > > http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/multiple-servers.html > > The warning against sharing a data directory among servers also > applies in an NFS environment. Allowing multiple MySQL servers to > access a common data directory over NFS is a very bad idea. > > * The primary problem is that NFS is the speed bottleneck. It is > not meant for such use. >