Re: WAL archive space planning?

Hi Scott,

Do you have any experience on any RDBMS other than postgres ?
And this page explains it very much about WAL ----
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/continuous-archiving.html
Replication is actually a disaster recovery solution, but now many
other experts extend it to function others.
For example, combining with pgpool, it could distribute offload select
query to slave sites for scale or performance concerns.
Of course you could also coding plproxy to accomplish the same goal.

Best Regards,
Steven

2017-03-14 12:17 GMT+08:00 Scott Whitney <scott(at)journyx(dot)com>:

> Forgive me if this has been explained well in the past. You can probably
> search my name for discussions on this...
>
> I fail to see why WAL archiving is either required or desired in a
> streaming replication scenario WHERE ONE NEVER NEEDS PITR.
>
> I have 2 "production" servers. One is paid customers, and one is
> customer-facing test and training. Let us call the one that I care about
> bigDb and the other littleDb.
>
> littleDb replicates bigDb in real-time. They both back up nightly. They
> are in the same data center.
>
> At my home office, I have otherDb which replicates BOTH and runs
> independent backups nightly.
>
> I have to have a secondary data center. Let's call that otherCityBigDb and
> otherCityLittleDb. They stream replication.
>
> There is nowhere in the world where I am responsible for rolling back to
> anything.
>
> Why would one EVER want WAL archiving? It seems like you are planning for
> failure.
>
> On Mar 13, 2017 10:55 PM, Steven Chang <stevenchang1213(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Dears,
>
> Just read a posgres monitoring moudule named check-postres, which is
> a ready enhance package on Debian Linux Distribution.
>
> https://bucardo.org/check_postgres/check_postgres.pl.html
>
> here is its readme about wal_files
> Maybe you can also use this module to help plan your space usage of
> WAL files.
>
> wal_files
> ("symlink: check_postgres_wal_files") Checks how many WAL files
> exist in the
> pg_xlog directory, which is found off of your data_directory,
> sometimes as a
> symlink to another physical disk for performance reasons. This
> action must be
> run as a superuser, in order to access the contents of the pg_xlog
> directory.
> The minimum version to use this action is Postgres 8.1. The
> --warning and
> --critical options are simply the number of files in the pg_xlog
> directory. What
> number to set this to will vary, but a general guideline is to put
> a number
> slightly higher than what is normally there, to catch problems
> early.
>
> Normally, WAL files are closed and then re-used, but a long-running
> open
> transaction, or a faulty archive_command script, may cause Postgres
> to create
> too many files. Ultimately, this will cause the disk they are on to
> run out of
> space, at which point Postgres will shut down.
>
>
> 2017-02-22 3:45 GMT+08:00 Keith <keith(at)keithf4(dot)com>:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Ray Stell <stellr(at)vt(dot)edu> wrote:
>
> On 2/21/17 12:26 PM, Keith wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Ray Stell <stellr(at)vt(dot)edu> wrote:
>
> On 2/21/17 12:09 AM, Steven Chang wrote:
>
> check this, his 2nd part introduces Stream Replication Implementation and
> tell you px_log retention and wal archive related parameters.
> https://www.itenlight.com/blog/2016/05/19/PostgreSQL+HA+with
> +pgpool-II+-+Part+2
>
> 2017-02-18 2:30 GMT+08:00 Ray Stell <stellr(at)vt(dot)edu>:
>
> I was "planning" to turn on WAL archiving on a postgresql 9.4.11 server
> that currently is running with "wal_level=hot_standby" and streaming to a
> standby. I thought there would be a relationship between the rate of
> pg_xlog files and archive generation. When I turned up the
> archive_command/mode I found the scale of the archive target was wrong as I
> had based it on the pg_xlog file creation rate.
>
> When I turned on the archive command for a few minutes, pg_xlog dir
> contained these files for the time period:
>
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Feb 17 06:47
> 00000001000023AC0000007F
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Feb 17 06:45
> 00000001000023AC0000007E
>
> The archive command wrote 126, 16MB files:
>
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Feb 17 06:47
> 000000010000237700000056
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Feb 17 06:47
> 000000010000237700000055
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Feb 17 06:47
> 000000010000237700000054
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Feb 17 06:47
> 000000010000237700000053
> ...
>
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Feb 17 06:45
> 0000000100002376000000DC
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Feb 17 06:45
> 0000000100002376000000DB
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Feb 17 06:45
> 0000000100002376000000DA
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Feb 17 06:45
> 0000000100002376000000D9
>
> On servers that are not nearly as busy, I observe a one-to-one
> relationship between these files/rates.
>
> Is there a good WAL archive space planning guide?
>
> Is the way to collect planning data for this to turn on wal_debug?
>
> TIA!
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
>
>
> I'm interested in why I might observed a dramatic difference between
> pg_xlog files and the archive target files. Other dbs I see have them
> pretty much one-to-one, but not in this case here. What might cause the
> large variation? I got only a few pg_xlogs files each minute and 42
> archive files/min.
>
>
>
> Ray,
>
> Did you see my previous response about the archive_timeout setting?
>
>
> Lost your post somehow, but I see it in the list archive. Thanks, Keith.
>
> There was a 30 minute timeout set, but I would not think that would
> increase the archive file generation as observed, does it?
>
> " When this parameter is greater than zero, the server will switch to a
> new segment file whenever this many seconds have elapsed since the last
> segment file switch, and there has been any database activity, including a
> single checkpoint. (Increasing checkpoint_timeout will reduce unnecessary
> checkpoints on an idle system.) "
>
> Your post seems to indicate having a non-zero value might increase the
> number of archive files, is that so? Maybe it is in milliseconds which
> might make sense with the observed archive rate, but the doc says seconds
> and it was set to 1800. I can set it to 0 and see if it changes things,
> but I'm a little confused.
>
>
>
>
> If it was set to 30 minutes, then no, it wouldn't explain what you saw.
> But we didn't know what it was set to, so that's why I asked. Make sure
> you're checking the value actually set in the database, and not just what's
> in postgresql.conf, since it could've changed but never been reloaded to
> put in place (type "show archive_timeout" in psql).
>
> If that's not it, not sure what may be causing what you're seeing.
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
> Journyx, Inc.
> 7600 Burnet Road #300
> Austin, TX 78757
> www.journyx.com
>
> p 512.834.8888 <(512)%20834-8888>
> f 512-834-8858 <(512)%20834-8858>
>
> Do you receive our promotional emails? You can subscribe or unsubscribe to
> those emails at http://go.journyx.com/emailPreference/e/4932/714/
>