Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B4DF635902 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:06:22 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 62837-07 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:06:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59FEA6348DD for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:06:14 -0400 (AST) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1N7rM9-00055O-A3 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:06:01 +0100 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:06:01 +0100 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:06:01 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org From: Ivan Voras Subject: Re: limiting performance impact of wal archiving. Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:05:36 +0100 Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <8a1bfe660911100355l34a557ffj8244079c1fb689b5@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090928) In-Reply-To: <8a1bfe660911100355l34a557ffj8244079c1fb689b5@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.599 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200911/98 X-Sequence-Number: 36266 Laurent Laborde wrote: > Hi ! > We recently had a problem with wal archiving badly impacting the > performance of our postgresql master. Hmmm, do you want to say that copying 16 MB files over the network (and presumably you are not doing it absolutely continually - there are pauses between log shipping - or you wouldn't be able to use bandwidth limiting) in an age when desktop drives easily read 60 MB/s (and besides most of the file should be cached by the OS anyway) is a problem for you? Slow hardware? (or I've misunderstood the problem...)