PostgreSQL server on a QNAP NAS?

[gobtron]

Has anyone ever tried to run a PostgreSQL server on a QNAP box? I know Postgres is available in their repo, but I was wondering if that could work well or not.

Does a NAS work like any linux distro out there? Could you just compile sources? I would install PostGIS with CGAL too.

I was thinking about storing only the cluster on the NAS but I think it would be more robust if the database server was not depending on CIFS/NFS protocol to interact with the cluster.

All this would not happen in a productivity environment. The NAS server would serve as a multi-purpose storage device, backup management, development tool/personal laboratory at home.

 

[sfx2000]

Virtualization Station is a better place to be - try to stay away from doing low level changes within QTS itself...

That being said - VirtSta is pretty decent - it's KVM based - so one can install Debian/Redhat based linux distro's and they're pretty much standalone...

QTS is going thru some interesting steps however with Containers... LinuxStation based installs an Ubuntu userland over QTS as a container - it's sandboxed, but not the same as running a KVM image...

They also have the "Container Station" which basically pre-packages some docker images as part of a supported platform.

With regards to PostGres - hard to tell - most of my work is either around mysql or oracle, and I'm not a dba... nothing against postgres, just that mysql/mariadb basically met my needs, and a nice API from php/python/perl...

 

[gobtron]

I have read a few posts about people running PostgreSQL instances inside virtual machines with success. In fact, they were running dozens if not a hundred of instances in different VM with only a little performance drop. They probably have the hardware to back this configuration though... But for use case like mine, I am not really concerned about performance drop... Everything is better than my Raspberry Pi with my little portable USB drive attached to the USB2 port and 100Mb/s ethernet port

But maybe you can help me define my needs here... When I started looking for a NAS for my home/personnal/(home office) use, I was looking for a mid-range 2-bay NAS. I am now seriously considering the TVS-671 with 8gb RAM and quad-core i5, which is +1000$ more than I was expecting to pay at first

I would run a linux Virtual Machine 24/7 for Postgres, another Android VM for mobile apps development, and a Windows VM for some specific windows-only apps (ArcGIS, which can be quite heavy on ressources). Android and Windows VM would run only when needed.

Meanwhile the NAS would serve as a centralized storage and backups.

Would that be exagerated for the TVS-671? Would the TVS-671 be overkill? Anyway, I like to spend more the first time and not having to by the same thing twice...

 

[sfx2000]

I have read a few posts about people running PostgreSQL instances inside virtual machines with success. In fact, they were running dozens if not a hundred of instances in different VM with only a little performance drop. They probably have the hardware to back this configuration though... But for use case like mine, I am not really concerned about performance drop... Everything is better than my Raspberry Pi with my little portable USB drive attached to the USB2 port and 100Mb/s ethernet port

Going into a big NAS like the 671 vs. your DB needs - I'm thinking a NAS isn't the right answer - if you want to play around with db development - then BSD or Linux on a commodity Dell box might be a better answer - and the Dell's are cheap and reliable...

Going into a NAS for other stuff - one really must consider needs vs. wants - the 671 is a real beast - it's spendy, it uses a fair amount of power, but for some, which are not most home users, it's probably overkill - and when you get to that price point - one must consider the other options, and do the cost/benefit analysis based on requirements set above...

 

[kamina]

A VM on a nas is fine for light DB work as long as you can allocate enough memory to fit the data cached in vm memory.

We run a lot of databases on virtual machines, though part of them have fusion-io disks (not all). Well thought out systems have no issues being on a VM, they can handle tens to hundreds of thousands of transactions per second when optimized.

Obviously the CPU's are not especially fast (opposite really) and IOPS is not high, but it's a good opportunity to also ensure your DB operations are optimised.