| From: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Incrementally Updated Backup |
| Date: | 2006-09-21 09:07:50 |
| Message-ID: | 1158829670.25023.264.camel@coppola.muc.ecircle.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> True, but running several dozen instances on a single machine will
> require a lot more memory (or, conversely, each individual database gets
> a lot less memory to use).
>
> Of course, this is all hand-waving right now... it'd be interesting to
> see which approach was actually better.
I'm running 4 WAL logging standby clusters on a single machine. While
the load on the master servers occasionally goes up to >60, the load on
the standby machine have never climbed above 5.
Of course when the master servers are all loaded, the standby gets
behind with the recovery... but eventually it gets up to date again.
I would be very surprised if it would get less behind if I would use it
in the 1 by 1 scenario.
Cheers,
Csaba.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2006-09-21 09:46:22 | Re: Phantom Command ID |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-09-21 08:53:10 | Re: Release Notes: Major Changes in 8.2 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-21 16:17:28 | Re: [HACKERS] large object regression tests |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-21 00:13:16 | Re: WIP: Hierarchical Queries - stage 1 |