From: | Richard Harley <richard(at)scholarpack(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Backups |
Date: | 2012-03-15 12:37:02 |
Message-ID: | 4F61E26E.9040305@scholarpack.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Thanks for a quick reply. The server has 6 cores, 6GB ram and top gets
to 2.3-2.5 load average when running the dumpall. So I assume we are
nowhere near this causing performance issues for users?
Thanks
Rich
On 15/03/12 12:21, Bèrto ëd Sèra wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> it's no easy answer. If your server has plenty of free resources there
> won't be trouble, but I do have customers who cannot even imagine of
> launching a dump in normal traffic hours. How loaded is your box,
> currently?
>
> Cheerio
> Bèrto
>
> On 15 March 2012 12:15, Richard Harley <richard(at)scholarpack(dot)com
> <mailto:richard(at)scholarpack(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> Hello all
>
> Very simple question - does pg_dump/dumpall hit the server in
> terms of database performance? We currently do nightly backups and
> I want to move to hourly backups but not at the expense of hogging
> all the resources for 5 mins.
>
> Pg_dumpall is currently producing a 1GB file - that's the combined
> size of around 30 databases and it takes around 5 mins to run.
>
> Thanks
> Rich
>
>
>
>
> --
> ==============================
> If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in a
> darkened room munching pills and listening to repetitive music.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bèrto ëd Sèra | 2012-03-15 12:41:57 | Re: Backups |
Previous Message | Bèrto ëd Sèra | 2012-03-15 12:21:12 | Re: Backups |