From: "mark" <dvlhntr@gmail.com>
To: "'Ben Ciceron'" <ben@triggit.com>
Cc: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
References: 
 <CAOsHk6FwAXkYK1OsZbtvhPwiJgky9_k=ji48pPoVJOtj2ZSsDg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOsHk6FwAXkYK1OsZbtvhPwiJgky9_k=ji48pPoVJOtj2ZSsDg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: pg9 replication over WAN ?
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 21:22:12 -0600
Message-ID: <00bd01cc84a0$4f57a700$ee06f500$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AcyDqjvt7tGZLTtqSnC0tubjXhT9SgA7BXwA
Content-Language: en-us


> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance-
> owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Ben Ciceron
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 3:53 PM
> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: [PERFORM] pg9 replication over WAN ?
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Has any performance or evaluation done for pg9.x streaming replication
> over WAN ?
> How adequate is the protocol to push WALs over long distance ?
> Any best practice tuning wal_* for WAN ?
> 
> Cheers,
> Ben-


Works for us between the middle of the US and the UK. This on some databases
that do a few gig of log files per day. 

I keep a large number of wal_keep_segments because I have the disk capacity
for it and the initial rsync takes a while at ~2-4MB/s. 


You may find you need to tune the tcp-keep alive settings, but I am not sure
if that was really a change in the setting or a fix to our load balancers
that fixed an issue I was seeing. 

Overall I am extremely pleased with streaming replication + read only hot
standby. 


-Mark


> 
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-
> performance@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance