| From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Questions about the continuity of WAL archiving |
| Date: | 2025-08-12 19:19:48 |
| Message-ID: | bc2198fe-cf6a-47b2-bae9-a694c2097bb3@aklaver.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 8/12/25 10:40, Bob Jolliffe wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 at 17:14, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
> <mailto:adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>> wrote:
> The solution is to use a more capable storage platform.
>
>
> That is an interesting point you make Adrian. S3 seems quite popular
> for this type of archiving. What would you suggest as a more capable
Yes but from here:
https://pgbackrest.org/user-guide-rhel.html#s3-support
File creation time in S3 is relatively slow so backup/restore
performance is improved by enabling file bundling.
Where file bundling is explained here:
https://pgbackrest.org/user-guide-rhel.html#backup/bundle
Though I don't think would help in this case.
> (and cost effective) storage platform?
I would say anything that does not use object storage and instead uses
block storage, so you are not doing the conversion. I have no specific
recommendations as this is not something I do, archive to the cloud.
>
> Regards
> Bob
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | px shi | 2025-08-13 02:05:01 | Re: Questions about the continuity of WAL archiving |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2025-08-12 17:58:43 | Re: Backups with filesystem snapshots |