From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | matt(at)followers(dot)net |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: performance hit for replication |
Date: | 2005-04-12 16:37:01 |
Message-ID: | 425BF92D.6060004@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>So, my question is this: My server currently works great, performance wise.
>I need to add fail-over capability, but I'm afraid that introducing a
>stressful task such as replication will hurt my server's performance. Is
>there any foundation to my fears? I don't need to replicate the archived log
>data because I can easily restore that in a separate step from the nightly
>backup if disaster occurs. Also, my database load is largely selects. My
>application works great with PostgreSQL 7.3 and 7.4, but I'm currently using
>7.3.
>
>I'm eager to hear your thoughts and experiences,
>
>
Well with replicator you are going to take a pretty big hit initially
during the full
sync but then you could use batch replication and only replicate every
2-3 hours.
I am pretty sure Slony has similar capabilities.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Darcy Buskermolen | 2005-04-12 16:54:52 | Re: performance hit for replication |
Previous Message | Matthew Nuzum | 2005-04-12 16:25:04 | performance hit for replication |