Re: Parallel WAL Archival Options
| От | Ron |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Parallel WAL Archival Options |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | a45c5157-e2be-8592-9447-c62d414fa3dc@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Parallel WAL Archival Options (Nikhil Shetty <nikhil.dba04@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Parallel WAL Archival Options
|
| Список | pgsql-admin |
On 8/6/23 02:43, Nikhil Shetty wrote:
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.
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?
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.
Born in Arizona, moved to Babylonia.
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: