X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5887852C4C for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:15:41 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 71774-03 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 13:15:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C38D352C45 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:15:37 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mainbox.archonet.com (84-51-143-99.archon037.adsl.metronet.co.uk [84.51.143.99]) by smtp.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP id C4BFE40DC7A; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:15:30 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mainbox.archonet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580C715EDA; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:04:04 +0100 (BST) Received: from mainbox.archonet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mainbox [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06609-05; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:04:01 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.1.17] (client17.office.archonet.com [192.168.1.17]) by mainbox.archonet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744E015ED9; Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:04:01 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <42E4E341.4050807@archonet.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:04:01 +0100 From: Richard Huxton User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Shashi Kanth Boddula Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Mirroring PostgreSQL database References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.056 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200507/368 X-Sequence-Number: 13609 Shashi Kanth Boddula wrote: > > The customer is using DBmirror tool to mirror the database records of > primary to secondary . The customer is complaining that there is one day > (24 hours) delay between primary and secondray for database > synchronization . They have dedicated line and bandwidth , but still the > problems exists. You don't say what the nature of the problem with dbmirror is. Are they saturating their bandwidth? Are one or both servers unable to keep pace with the updates? -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd