From: | Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump/pg_restore --jobs practical limit? |
Date: | 2023-11-03 13:19:42 |
Message-ID: | 413c6c5e-3c1d-47c6-98cd-a7f046493c76@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 11/3/23 05:09, Marc Millas wrote:
>
> Marc MILLAS
> Senior Architect
> +33607850334
> www.mokadb.com <http://www.mokadb.com>
>
>
>> Testing pg_restore with different --jobs= values will be easier.
>> pg_dump is what's going to be reading from a constantly varying system.
> Hello,
>
> each time I do a replatforming of this kind, with DB up to 2 TB, I did
> create the target DB, eventually needed users then the appropriate
> databases, and finally, a simple script to pipe pg_dump into psql,
> databases one by one.
> So.. one thread. Each time, it was limited by the network bandwidth. My
> last replatforming with a 10 Gb net and a 1.5 TB DB did show a transfer of
> 500 Mbytes per second (5Gbs) so.. less than an hour.
I'm shocked that old-school "SQL" single-threading works that fast.
Thanks for the data point.
> which is just fine. Launch it, have lunch, a coffee, and ...done for
> test. For Prod, I am used to do it at the quietest night of the week end.
> and have a nap ( a short one !)...:-)
--
Born in Arizona, moved to Babylonia.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-11-03 13:33:37 | Re: Local postgres manual |
Previous Message | Ben Hancock | 2023-11-03 13:18:19 | Local postgres manual |