> Why is this more likely to corrupt a DB than having it on local disks, when something goes wrong?
Local filesystems (ext4, xfs) have been designed to run over reliable internal bus and over spinning disk. They are (almost) able to stand most of the outage happening in this context ( powercut, corrupted block, missing flush ).
Put them over a non-reliable "normal" network, where you can get "savage" cable unplugged, faulty controller, paquet loss, out of order delivery, buggy middle box and you explode the number of scenario that can go wrong and will go wrong.
Block level I/O virtualization is amazingly useful, but (in my mind) it should be used with care...
I already heard of case in prod where the Master DB, the Slave DB and backup finished all in the same virtualized block-level storage.... try to guess what happened next.
Local filesystems (ext4, xfs) have been designed to run over reliable internal bus and over spinning disk. They are (almost) able to stand most of the outage happening in this context ( powercut, corrupted block, missing flush ).
Put them over a non-reliable "normal" network, where you can get "savage" cable unplugged, faulty controller, paquet loss, out of order delivery, buggy middle box and you explode the number of scenario that can go wrong and will go wrong.
Block level I/O virtualization is amazingly useful, but (in my mind) it should be used with care...
I already heard of case in prod where the Master DB, the Slave DB and backup finished all in the same virtualized block-level storage.... try to guess what happened next.