Re: WAL and pg_dump - Mailing list pgsql-admin

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: WAL and pg_dump
Date
Msg-id 20051223015001.GD6026@ns.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WAL and pg_dump  (Mike C <smith.not.western@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: WAL and pg_dump  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-admin
* Mike C (smith.not.western@gmail.com) wrote:
> Yes, space is our limiting factor. A pg_dump archive format backup takes
> about 40mins for 25GB. A restore IIRC takes about 2 hours. However the size
> of the database is expected to grow to about 120 GB within a few months and
> by the end of 2006 over 400 GB. The current capacity of our DS 400 SAN is
> 600 GB. at 400GB my only backup option with the existing hardware is
> pg_dump. However I suspect now that I really should be looking at additional
> hardware.

Yeah, that pg_dump restore time is pretty rough.

As I recall, the initial backup of our 360GB (or so) database took
about 6 hours and the restore only took about 2 hours.  One nice thing
(well, in a way I guess) was that the whole thing compressed down to
under 100GB.  This was on an IBM DS4600 SAN (iirc, something along those
lines) with 5 320GB FC disks in a RAID-5.

I'm not really looking forward to the day I get to pg_dump and
pg_restore the whole thing to move to 8.1. :)

    Thanks,

        Stephen

Attachment

pgsql-admin by date:

Previous
From: Mike C
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL and pg_dump
Next
From: "Qingqing Zhou"
Date:
Subject: Re: Pgstat.tmp file activity