Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 685A9B5DBDF for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:03:28 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 50252-03 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:03:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com (mail-fx0-f46.google.com [209.85.161.46]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7BE9B5DBE4 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:03:21 -0300 (ADT) Received: by fxh19 with SMTP id 19so208949fxh.19 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:03:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=Vzr+dYTCNc/bvjJJL49BlYTntbdoSJIOqnaRyZ0yUFA=; b=eoHyojJMKeO/5/9rCFywVR9ZY8NBfUELWeKCk/iVkv7QuErYkyqmOj7JCfceRrlCOi 26cIurf7rMaOQHpQthrwGoR2jxOxuzszNO84qgkUgTqpFvFKPBCsaqRy9wELAurdiu10 ctlPitgTdBsh8urHQ2Qk+C8N7ya22wno7Wy4g= Received: by 10.223.64.66 with SMTP id d2mr131406fai.116.1313525000806; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:03:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ltafaltynek.localnet (79.163.broadband2.iol.cz [83.208.163.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y15sm299857fah.11.2011.08.16.13.03.18 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:03:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Pin007 Reply-To: pin007@gmail.com To: Merlin Moncure Subject: Re: Streaming replication performance Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:03:16 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.0.0-1-686-pae; KDE/4.6.5; i686; ; ) Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <201108111646.39321.pin007@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201108162203.16635.pin007@gmail.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.079 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA=0.72 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201108/170 X-Sequence-Number: 44617 Dne P=E1 12. srpna 2011 18:47:24 Merlin Moncure napsal(a): > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Antonin Faltynek wrot= e: > > Hi all, > >=20 > > I'm testing Streamin replication with one hot standby node and I'm > > experiencing high delay of hot standby node. > >=20 > > When I reach aprox. 50 transactions per second where every transaction > > includes only simple "UPDATE status SET number =3D number + 1 WHERE nam= e =3D > > 'iterations'", the standby server falls behind master and the delay is > > several minutes. In comparison, Slony1 have no issues with the same test > > and its delay is only several seconds. > >=20 > > Am I missing some configuration that affects speed of streaming > > replicaiton? >=20 > hm -- how are you determining the standby is behind? are you running > any other queries on the standby? >=20 > merlin Simply, during test I'm generating series of numbers that I'm periodicaly=20 checking on both master and stand by server. Also I'm measuring several server metrics, like CPU usage, disk usage, netw= ork=20 bandwidth. When testing streaming replication network usage does not get over 1Mbps an= d=20 catching master takes several tens of minutes, while during test of WAL fil= e=20 shipping, network usage get to 3-5Mpbs and stand by server does not fall=20 behind master more than several seconds. There is no other traffic on stand by server, only periodical check of test= =20 table (SELECT * FROM status) every 2s. Extension of this check interval doe= s=20 not affect behavior of streaming replication. Tonda