From: | Jerry Sievers <gsievers19(at)comcast(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Jerry Sievers <gsievers19(at)comcast(dot)net>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Pg-Upgrade standbys via rsync... and avoid sending UNlogged data? |
Date: | 2016-07-25 17:34:45 |
Message-ID: | 86eg6hr58q.fsf@jerry.enova.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Stephen Frost (sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net) wrote:
>
>> > I have among others, a 5TB system w/about 40G of unlogged data.
>>
>> Honestly, sending an extra 40G out of 5TB (we're talking less than 1%
>> here...) might be worth it to keep the process simple.
>
> Of course, I realize right after sending this that you aren't sending
> the 5TB. :)
Roger that! Really, the hard link pg-upgrade option and rsync method
for standbys is pure beauty :-)
We have only the post-analyze and this unlogged data problem to deal
with.
The warehouse is our only system with any substantial amount of unlogged
data.
Reducing post-analyze delay was solved by me here with our groovy
threaded AnalyzMaTron. I can get a >5TB system done in about 45 minutes
w/20 threads.
Thanks!
> Depends on your network speed if the 40G would be an issue or not then.
> In some cases, it might only add a bit of time but keep the process
> simple, other cases, it might take longer. I'm not really thrilled with
> the idea of complicating the rsync in that way, but I can understand why
> you're considering it.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Stephen
--
Jerry Sievers
e: jerry(dot)sievers(at)comcast(dot)net
p: 312.241.7800
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2016-07-26 11:55:51 | Re: if anyone is running slony, I have a trivial question |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-07-25 16:43:29 | Re: Pg-Upgrade standbys via rsync... and avoid sending UNlogged data? |