Re: pg_dump vs pg_basebackup
От | Claudio Freire |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump vs pg_basebackup |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAGTBQpZm3HVZBMvOsaFpvPWxhAOaTv6SH=RwfX0Hg56XuEn4eQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dump vs pg_basebackup ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On 03/25/2014 08:18 AM, Ilya Kosmodemiansky wrote: >> >> >> Joshua, >> >> that is really good point: an alternative is to use pg_basebackup >> through ssh tunnel with compression, but rsync is much simpler. > > > Or rsync over ssh. The advantage is that you can create backups that don't > have to be restored, just started. You can also use the differential > portions of rsync to do it multiple times a day without much issue. rsync's delta transfer isn't relly very effective with postgres. You don't save any I/O, just network traffic, and in general the bottleneck is I/O (unless you have a monster I/O subsys or a snail of a network one). There were some musing about making delta transfer more efficient in pg in hackers, but I don't think anything tangible came out of that, so it's basically equivalent to a full transfer. The only reason to leverage rsync's delta transfer would be to decrease the time between pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup, which could only matter if you're low on WAL space, but the reduction, in my experience, isn't stellar.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: