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

Re: Shared pg_xlog directory/partition and warm standby

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,"Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
Cc: "Devrim GUNDUZ" <devrim(at)CommandPrompt(dot)com>,<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Shared pg_xlog directory/partition and warm standby
Date: 2006-11-28 13:09:26
Message-ID: E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA579018FE1A8@m0143.s-mxs.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> I suppose we might want to have multiple archivals occurring
> simultaneously by overlapping their start and stop times. 
> That might be useful for situations where we have a bank of slow
response tape
> drives/autoloaders?

I have never seen such a setup, where it would have helped to archive
DB logs in parallel. The 16 Mb are not enough to get tapes going.
So in setups where you have lots of WAL, I would increase 
XLOG_SEG_SIZE. In my experience it is less a db performance issue, than
an administrative and storage system overhead issue (to start a backup
session every few seconds or even subsecond).
 
e.g. Backup systems like TSM perform better when you don't have so many
tiny files,
all saved separately.   

> Anybody else see the need for this?

No :-)

Andreas

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Markus SchiltknechtDate: 2006-11-28 13:19:51
Subject: Re: Integrating Replication into Core
Previous:From: dbDate: 2006-11-28 13:06:24
Subject: Re: Potential to_char localization bug

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