Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: WAL and pg_dump

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Mike C <smith(dot)not(dot)western(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WAL and pg_dump
Date: 2005-12-23 01:50:01
Message-ID: 20051223015001.GD6026@ns.snowman.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin
* Mike C (smith(dot)not(dot)western(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> Yes, space is our limiting factor. A pg_dump archive format backup takes
> about 40mins for 25GB. A restore IIRC takes about 2 hours. However the size
> of the database is expected to grow to about 120 GB within a few months and
> by the end of 2006 over 400 GB. The current capacity of our DS 400 SAN is
> 600 GB. at 400GB my only backup option with the existing hardware is
> pg_dump. However I suspect now that I really should be looking at additional
> hardware.

Yeah, that pg_dump restore time is pretty rough.

As I recall, the initial backup of our 360GB (or so) database took 
about 6 hours and the restore only took about 2 hours.  One nice thing
(well, in a way I guess) was that the whole thing compressed down to
under 100GB.  This was on an IBM DS4600 SAN (iirc, something along those 
lines) with 5 320GB FC disks in a RAID-5.

I'm not really looking forward to the day I get to pg_dump and
pg_restore the whole thing to move to 8.1. :)

	Thanks,

		Stephen

In response to

Responses

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-23 04:28:30
Subject: Re: Pgstat.tmp file activity
Previous:From: Mike CDate: 2005-12-23 01:34:28
Subject: Re: WAL and pg_dump

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group