Wed Dec 15 03:51:28 PST 2004
- Previous message: [Slony1-general] Slony-I failover quesion ask for help
- Next message: [Slony1-general] Question about table set ordering, and addingtables to an existing set
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
We got everything upgraded and moved over (which Slony helped significantly with) but have abandoned the thought of running a full copy in master/slave mode after about 2 weeks of trying it. We found that Slony was taking up easily 30% of the systems resources so we will be sticking with our old method. The biggest issue was the unbounded growth of sl_log_1 while pg_dump was running. The slony log table would grow to easily contain over 30M dead tuples sitting in it that couldn't be deleted because they were over minxid. A group size of 1000 could keep up (well, for some definitions of keep up -- it was regularly 30 minutes behind), but used up a full CPU (and another for pg_dump). I'll give it another shot with 8.0.x (in spring/summer) if the PITR mechanisms work out and can eliminate the pg_dump bottleneck. No, dumping the backup instead was not feasible. In the mean time, a few suggestions: * Don't run the standard delete/vacuum clean job unless the minimum xid has changed since the last time. * Watch process memory usage or give us a way of changing the number of slots used on the command line. If you get enough 5MB tuples through in a sync, you can run our of process memory space pretty easily on 32bit hardware (3GB on that machine at the time). It worked much better on 64bit hardware. Thanks for your efforts! Slony did successfully cut our downtime for upgrading from about 18 to 24 hours to about 5 minutes. --
- Previous message: [Slony1-general] Slony-I failover quesion ask for help
- Next message: [Slony1-general] Question about table set ordering, and addingtables to an existing set
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Slony1-general mailing list