Re: Portworx snapshots

From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Ghislain ROUVIGNAC <ghr(at)sylob(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Portworx snapshots
Date: 2018-10-29 07:49:43
Message-ID: 86bd6d8e5019bd5f48a44c769f011613a1728f23.camel@cybertec.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Stephen Frost wrote:
> The downside with any snapshot-style approach is that it means that when
> you have a failure, you have to go through and replay all the WAL since
> the last checkpoint, which is single-threaded and can take a large
> amount of time.
>
> When doing your testing, I'd strongly recommend that you have a large
> max_wal_size, run a large pgbench which writes a lot of data, and see
> how long a failover takes with this system.

Then "checkpoint_timeout" should also be large, right?

Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ghislain ROUVIGNAC 2018-10-29 08:36:15 Re: Portworx snapshots
Previous Message Igor Korot 2018-10-29 04:03:04 Log file