Re: PITR performance costs

From: "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Dave Cramer" <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
Cc: "postgresql performance list" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PITR performance costs
Date: 2007-05-29 13:06:56
Message-ID: b42b73150705290606t29535f8bi9930d73215664964@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 5/28/07, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:
> Since PITR has to enable archiving does this not increase the amount
> of disk I/O required ?

I've set up warm standbys on a few servers (some of them quite
busy!)...the additional load is virtually unmeasurable. I usually
don't copy the files locally...I scp them off to some other server.
When archived, the WAL files are likely cached but there is some
overhead to copying them off however.

merlin

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2007-05-29 13:19:36 Re: general PG network slowness (possible cure) (repost)
Previous Message PFC 2007-05-29 08:43:56 Re: Feature suggestion : FAST CLUSTER