Re: Incremental backup with RSYNC or something?

From: Phoenix Kiula <phoenix(dot)kiula(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>
Cc: Gregg Jaskiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robins Tharakan <robins(dot)tharakan(at)comodo(dot)com>, PG-General Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Incremental backup with RSYNC or something?
Date: 2011-11-13 15:10:16
Message-ID: CAFWfU=tzkR9PSFaCirimq8=AB-bMUmfZJw3ZixtZ=JfUu_h23g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> wrote:
> On 11/13/2011 07:51 AM, Gregg Jaskiewicz wrote:
>>
>> pg_dump -Fc already compresses, no need to pipe through gzip
>>
>
> I dont think that'll use two core's if you have 'em.  The pipe method will
> use two cores, so it should be faster.  (assuming you are not IO bound).

I am likely IO bound. Anyway, what's the right code for the pipe
method? I think the earlier recommendation had a problem as "-Fc"
already does compression.

Is this the right code for the FASTEST possible backup if I don't care
about the size of the dump, all I want is that it's not CPU-intensive
(with the tables I wish excluded) --

BKPFILE=/backup/pg/dbback-${DATA}.sql
pg_dump MYDB -T excludetable1 -T excludetable2 -U MYDB_MYDB | gzip
--fast > ${BKPFILE}

Thanks!

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2011-11-13 15:33:45 Re: [SPAM?]: Re: CLONE DATABASE (with copy on write?)
Previous Message Clark C. Evans 2011-11-13 15:07:40 Re: CLONE DATABASE (with copy on write?)