From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: mcelroy, tim <tim.mcelroy@bostonstock.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_dump issue
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 11:15:48 -0400
Message-ID: <24064.1149002148@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9765373733A7DF4681B12225D2FC44050D6D0C@bosexprod001.bostonstock.local>
References: <9765373733A7DF4681B12225D2FC44050D6D0C@bosexprod001.bostonstock.local>
"mcelroy, tim" <tim.mcelroy@bostonstock.com> writes:
> I have identical postgres installations running on identical machines. Dual
> Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 870 , 16GB RAM, Red Hat Linux 3.2.3-20 and
> 120GB worth of disk space on two drives.
> Recently, I have noticed that my nightly backups take longer on one machine
> than on the other. I back up five (5) databases totaling 8.6GB in size. On
> Prod001 the backups take app. 7 minutes, on Prod002 the backups take app. 26
> minutes! Quite a discrepancy.
Are the resulting backup files identical? Chasing down the reasons for
any diffs might yield some enlightenment.
One idea that comes to mind is that Prod002 is having performance
problems due to table bloat (maybe a missing vacuum cron job or
some such). A quick "du" on the two $PGDATA directories to check
for significant size differences would reveal this if so.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, tim.mcelroy@bostonstock.com
Subject: Re: pg_dump issue
In-Reply-To: <24064.1149002148@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox