From: | Sergio Gabriel Rodriguez <sgrodriguez(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: problems with large objects dump |
Date: | 2012-10-11 21:46:04 |
Message-ID: | CAMHBdEqPt+g+aAUVfE4zV01UOLPsBuU2kpJ2jJHWs2Lr_8x1yg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi,
I tried with Postgresql 9.2 and the process used to take almost a day
and a half, was significantly reduced to 6 hours, before failing even used
to take four hours. My question now is, how long should it take the backup
for a 200GB database with 80% of large objects?
Hp proliant Xeon G5
32 GB RAM
OS SLES 10 + logs --> raid 6
data-->raid 6
thanks!
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Sergio Gabriel Rodriguez <
sgrodriguez(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> You wouldn't happen to be
>> trying to use a 9.0 or later pg_dump would you? Exactly what 8.4.x
>> release is this, anyway?
>>
>>
>>
> Tom, thanks for replying, yes, we tried it with postgres postgres 9.1 and
> 9.2 and the behavior is exactly the same. The production version is 8.4.9
>
> Greetings,
>
> sergio.
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-10-11 22:16:33 | Re: problems with large objects dump |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2012-10-11 18:17:59 | Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server |