db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lily Wei <lily...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: NFS and Derby
Date Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:17:44 GMT
I would agree to be safe and able to sleep at night ensure data integration by 
not using NFS mounts database is definitely the way to go.  However, I remember 
there are SAP customers who do that with Oracle. Oracle push the idea to use NFS 
mounts database. I was referring to article like: 

Some discussion on SAP community network: 

DB2 does not recommend such operation. 

I will not say I would never put a database (the data files) on an NFS 
filesystem. However, I will think three times before doing that. :)


From: Kathey Marsden <kmarsdenderby@sbcglobal.net>
To: derby-user@db.apache.org
Sent: Thu, November 11, 2010 7:56:25 AM
Subject: NFS and Derby

I have always told users they have to have their databases on a local disk to 
ensure data integrity and that  a system crash for an NFS mounted database could 
cause fatal corruption, but had a user this morning take me to task on this and 
ask me to explain exactly why.  I gave my general response about not being able 
to guarantee a sync to disk over the network, but want to have a more 
authoritative reference for why  you cannot count on an NFS mounted disk 
although I did find several places where the sync option "favors data integrity" 
which certainly doesn't sound like a guarantee.  Does anyone know a good general 
reference I can use on this topic to support my "you gotta use a local disk" 

Also I think our documentation on this topic should be a bit stronger.  
Currently we just say it may not work and probably should be clearer that data 
corruption could occur.  I will file an issue to beef up the language based on 
the conversation in this thread.




View raw message