Re: pgBackRest for a 50 TB database - Mailing list pgsql-general
| From | Abhishek Bhola |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: pgBackRest for a 50 TB database |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | CAEDsCzgt13nxgCBZihBcJr2NJzfULOMqGET-uFPuz76-FeM8=g@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: pgBackRest for a 50 TB database (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
| List | pgsql-general |
Hello Stephen
Just an update on this. After we deployed it on our PROD system, the results were far better than testing.
Time taken is around 4-5 hours only. And has been the case for the last 3 months or so.
full backup: 20231209-150002F
timestamp start/stop: 2023-12-09 15:00:02+09 / 2023-12-09 19:33:56+09
wal start/stop: 000000010001DCC30000008E / 000000010001DCC3000000A6
database size: 32834.8GB, database backup size: 32834.8GB
repo1: backup size: 5096.4GB
timestamp start/stop: 2023-12-09 15:00:02+09 / 2023-12-09 19:33:56+09
wal start/stop: 000000010001DCC30000008E / 000000010001DCC3000000A6
database size: 32834.8GB, database backup size: 32834.8GB
repo1: backup size: 5096.4GB
Now a question. I restored this big DB and it all works fine. However, I was wondering if there was a way to disable the subscription on Postgres while restoring the data using pgbackrest?
So for example, I have been taking a backup of this DB which has an active subscription.
When I am restoring the DB for test purposes, I don't want the subscription to be there. Is there any option to ignore the subscription?
Thanks
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 10:19 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
Greetings,On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 03:10 Abhishek Bhola <abhishek.bhola@japannext.co.jp> wrote:Here is the update with compress-type=zst in the config fileProcess-max is still 30. But it longer than before, around 27 hours 50 minsfull backup: 20231004-130621F
timestamp start/stop: 2023-10-04 13:06:21+09 / 2023-10-05 15:56:03+09
wal start/stop: 000000010001AC0E00000054 / 000000010001AC0E00000054
database size: 38249.0GB, database backup size: 38249.0GB
repo1: backup size: 5799.8GBDo you think I could be missing something?Sounds like there’s something else which is the bottleneck once you have process-max at 30. I suspect you could reduce that process-max value and have around the same time still with zstd. Ultimately if you want it to be faster then you’ll need to figure out what the bottleneck is (seemingly not CPU, unlikely to be memory, so that leaves network or storage) and address that.We’ve seen numbers approaching 10TB/hr with lots of processes and zstd and fast storage on high end physical hardware.Thanks,Stephen
This correspondence (including any attachments) is for the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain confidential or privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis-transmission. If you receive this correspondence by mistake, please contact the sender immediately, delete this correspondence (and all attachments) and destroy any hard copies. You must not use, disclose, copy, distribute or rely on any part of this correspondence (including any attachments) if you are not the intended recipient(s).
pgsql-general by date: