From: | Dragos Valentin Moinescu <dragos(dot)moinescu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 8.2 "real-time" recovery |
Date: | 2010-08-25 19:39:38 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimR=QjOgd2g3d6ahTepcbf=y6rzF+FR7Pg-cOwP@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> [Rearranged somewhat. Please don't top-post, but put responses at
> the appropriate point in-line. I've had to guess a bit at what was
> responding to what; apologies for any misinterpretation.]
Sorry about that:)
>
> Dragos Valentin Moinescu <dragos(dot)moinescu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>
>> I used rsync to create a base backup. Though I have 10 huge tables
>> (min 1GB each) that are modified several times a second, thus
>> creating a base backup hourly means I have to sync arround 10G
>> each time (which is pretty time consuming).
>
> Are you sure you used a rsync daemon, rather than having rsync on
> one end look directly at the files on the other end? That can make
> a big difference in the performance for a situation like this.
I did not use rsyncd. I used "rsync -avz user(at)host:/pgsqldata
/localpgdata". Will read about rsyncd
>
>>> I am inferring that you want to bring your standby up to run
>>> read-only queries once per hour, and then resume replication?
>
>> I do not want to use the standby server. This is why I am pretty
>> happy with stop - start + recover.
>
> I'm not sure I understand you -- you don't need to run any read-only
> queries on the standby server? Why are you stopping it once per
> hour? Perhaps you just haven't properly implemented warm standby?
I do not need a read-only server. I just want a server that is almost
a mirror to the other server.
> (A warm standby accepts new WAL files as they arrive, to stay
> relatively up-to-date -- they never reach a "recovery completed"
> state unless told to do so, because the recovery script waits for
> the next file instead of failing.)
>
What I did in terms of warm standby:
1. base backup using rsync
2. rsync all wal files
3. edited recoverfy.conf with a recovery_command="cp /wal-archive/%f %p"
So I need to write a new recovery_command that actually process any
files from there, but waits for other files to arrive.
"recovery-command.sh %f %p"
Thank you
>> I cannot base backup anymore :(
>
> What do you mean by that?
>
> -Kevin
>
--
Best regards,
Dragos Moinescu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-08-25 19:47:57 | Re: 8.2 "real-time" recovery |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-25 18:37:29 | Re: loading a lot of data on windows is very slow |