| From: | Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel WAL Archival Options |
| Date: | 2023-08-06 08:20:36 |
| Message-ID: | a45c5157-e2be-8592-9447-c62d414fa3dc@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On 8/6/23 02:43, Nikhil Shetty wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> I would like to know which backup&restore tools will be better for
> scenarios where the database is generating around 400 WALs per minute.
If my math is correct, 400x 16MB WAL files per minute is 400*(16*2^20)/60*8
/ 10^6 = 895 MBits *per second*. Plus overhead.
That's about *1Gbit/second*. Definitely nothing to sneeze at.
> We are using wal-g but it is not able to keep pace with the wal
> generation. We increased the upload streams to 256 but no luck
Uploads to a *remote* server?
Does wal-g compress files before sending them across the wire? By how
much? Are you CPU or IO bound by having to compress that much data?
--
Born in Arizona, moved to Babylonia.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michaeldba@sqlexec.com | 2023-08-06 08:26:36 | Re: Parallel WAL Archival Options |
| Previous Message | Nikhil Shetty | 2023-08-06 07:43:00 | Parallel WAL Archival Options |