3 ms·
It sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. The latency of NFS is just too high (Even if it is very fast for NFS) for it to be safe for a database.
by MrMullen 10y ago
It sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. The latency of NFS is just too high (Even if it is very fast for NFS) for it to be safe for a database.
- SteveNuts 10y agoWe're running Oracle on NFS volumes, and some MySQL databases also with no problems whatsoever. It'll never be as fast as local disk but the flexibility it provides is very nice.
- Sanddancer 10y agoThat's normal NFS. Amazon's offerings, if you have a 10 gigabyte database, you can only get 500KB/sec bandwidth -- http://docs.aws.amazon.com/efs/latest/ug/performance.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/efs/latest/ug/performance.html
- SteveNuts 10y agoHuh. well that's kinda shitty. Our NetApp can saturate 10GBe without even trying.
- Someone 10y agoI was more thinking about the risk of locking not working as intended on NFS (http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/locking2 http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/locking2. See also the section on Nightmare File System in the UNIX-Haters Handbook (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unix-Haters_Handbook) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unix-Haters_Handbook)). There are workarounds for the stateless mess of NFS in modern linuxes, but if you accidentally access a NFS-mounted database from multiple AWS instances, you might get into big trouble, especially when the machines in question run different OSes (e.g. Windows and Linux) or OS versions.