Seems to me the settings for nice and ionice above would, on a busy machine, slow down the transfer. Has there always been a notable time difference in the transfer or has it gotten worse over time?
Yep... I also thought about that. Specially because the master is constantly getting 100% of IO (we use SATA disks still)...
I'm thinking about removing that `ionice` command... I don't need to restart Postgres eh?? Just reload the confs?
@John R Pierce,
normally, you would ship the archived wal files to a file server via cp-over-nfs or scp, and have the slaves access them as needed via the recovery.conf
What if the NFS server goes down? Networking goes down? We have had that kind of problem in the past, that's why I'm shipping the wal_files to each slave, separately. Also, to have an extra copy of them.
@Venkata Balaji N,
Not sure why the script is so complex. Do you see any messages in the postgresql log file on master ? and on slave ? which indicates the reason for delayed shipping of WAL archives. Did you notice any network level issues ?
Yes the script is complex.. I've hidden almost all of it for privacy purpose.. sorry....
I don't see any messages on the log files... not on the master and not on the slaves as well. I just see the message of the wal_files being successfully shipped to the slaves.
Also, no networking level issues.. because I got four slaves with streaming replication and all of them are working fine... also, my backup server has never failed... so no networking issues.
