| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | HECTOR INGERTO <hector_25e(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Are ZFS snapshots unsafe when PGSQL is spreading through multiple zpools? |
| Date: | 2023-01-15 22:07:17 |
| Message-ID: | CABUevExTcY=zQqh=nhUJrpPZYr7Cf9DeBmpH0oUPaURjGv0RgA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 10:57 PM HECTOR INGERTO <hector_25e(at)hotmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
>
> > But you cannot and should not rely on snapshots alone
>
>
>
> That’s only for non atomic (multiple pools) snapshots. Isn’t?
>
Right. For single-filesystem installs it should be fine. Just make sure it
has both the data and the WAL directories in the same one.
> If I need to rely only on ZFS (automated) snapshots, then the best option
> would be to have two DB? Each one in each own pool. One HDD DB and one SSD
> DB. Then, the backend code should know on which DB the requested data is.
>
You could. I wouldn't -- I would set it up to use proper backups instead,
maybe using snapshots as the infrastructure. That gives you other
advantages as well, like being able to do PITR. It's a little more to set
up, but I'd say it's worth it.
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alan Hodgson | 2023-01-15 22:15:40 | Re: pg_upgrade 13.6 to 15.1? |
| Previous Message | pf | 2023-01-15 21:59:33 | Re: pg_upgrade 13.6 to 15.1? |