| From: | "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> | 
|---|---|
| To: | <richard(at)scholarpack(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: Backups | 
| Date: | 2012-03-15 15:30:24 | 
| Message-ID: | D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C2079CF0BF@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general | 
Richard Harley wrote:
> Very simple question -  does pg_dump/dumpall hit the server in terms
of database performance? We
> currently do nightly backups and I want to move to hourly backups but
not at the expense of hogging
> all the resources for 5 mins.
> 
> Pg_dumpall is currently producing a 1GB file - that's the combined
size of around 30 databases and it
> takes around 5 mins to run.
pg_dump will be a performance hit, because it consumes disk I/O
capacity.
You could measure how the system is affected by your current backup.
On the other hand, instead of doing an hourly pg_dump, it might be
preferable to do a filesystem backup and PITR. That way you have to
do a backup only once a day (or week, depends how much traffic you have
and how fast you have to restore) and can still recover to an
arbitrary point in time.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | George Weaver | 2012-03-15 16:17:59 | Using copy with a file containing blank rows | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-03-15 14:52:40 | Re: Fetch from cursor with indexed sorting |