Re: design for parallel backup

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: design for parallel backup
Date: 2020-04-22 16:29:57
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZccXE56j4sg2RhOT3XgHXTZNOKVbzKUQgx5PNkJH3tNA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 12:20 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2020-04-20 22:36, Robert Haas wrote:
> > My suspicion is that it has mostly to do with adequately utilizing the
> > hardware resources on the server side. If you are network-constrained,
> > adding more connections won't help, unless there's something shaping
> > the traffic which can be gamed by having multiple connections.
>
> This is a thing. See "long fat network" and "bandwidth-delay product"
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth-delay_product). The proper way
> to address this is presumably with TCP parameter tuning, but in practice
> it's often easier to just start multiple connections, for example, when
> doing a backup via rsync.

Very interesting -- thanks!

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2020-04-22 17:05:17 Re: Do we need to handle orphaned prepared transactions in the server?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2020-04-22 16:28:38 Re: backup manifests