Re: [PERFORM] Backup taking long time !!! - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Torsten Zuehlsdorff
Subject Re: [PERFORM] Backup taking long time !!!
Date
Msg-id c22085f2-b218-5270-1ca9-9288313049ff@toco-domains.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PERFORM] Backup taking long time !!!  (Vladimir Borodin <root@simply.name>)
Responses Re: [PERFORM] Backup taking long time !!!  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-performance
Hello,

>>> Increments in pgbackrest are done on file level which is not really
>>> efficient. We have done parallelism, compression and page-level
>>> increments (9.3+) in barman fork [1], but unfortunately guys from
>>> 2ndquadrant-it don’t hurry to work on it.
>>
>> We're looking at page-level incremental backup in pgbackrest also.  For
>> larger systems, we've not heard too much complaining about it being
>> file-based though, which is why it hasn't been a priority.  Of course,
>> the OP is on 9.1 too, so.
>
> Well, we have forked barman and made everything from the above just
> because we needed ~ 2 PB of disk space for storing backups for our ~ 300
> TB of data. (Our recovery window is 7 days) And on 5 TB database it took
> a lot of time to make/restore a backup.

I just have around 11 TB but switched to ZFS based backups only. I'm
using snapshots therefore which gives some flexibility. I can rolback
them, i can just clone it and work with a full copy as a different
cluster (and just the differences are stored) and i can send them
incrementally to other servers. This is very fine for my use cases but
it doesn't fit everything of course.

Greetings,
Torsten


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Backup taking long time !!!
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] optimizing immutable vs. stable function calls?