Re: performance hit for replication

jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") writes:
>>So, my question is this: My server currently works great,
>>performance wise.  I need to add fail-over capability, but I'm
>>afraid that introducing a stressful task such as replication will
>>hurt my server's performance. Is there any foundation to my fears? I
>>don't need to replicate the archived log data because I can easily
>>restore that in a separate step from the nightly backup if disaster
>>occurs. Also, my database load is largely selects. My application
>>works great with PostgreSQL 7.3 and 7.4, but I'm currently using
>>7.3.
>>
>>I'm eager to hear your thoughts and experiences,
>>
> Well with replicator you are going to take a pretty big hit
> initially during the full sync but then you could use batch
> replication and only replicate every 2-3 hours.
>
> I am pretty sure Slony has similar capabilities.

Yes, similar capabilities, similar "pretty big hit."

There's a downside to "batch replication" that some of the data
structures grow in size if you have appreciable periods between
batches.
--
(format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "acm.org")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/slony.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #78.  "I will not tell my Legions of Terror
"And he must  be taken alive!" The command will be:  ``And try to take
him alive if it is reasonably practical.''"
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>