El 04/07/16 a las 01:06, Adrian Klaver escribió:
> On 07/03/2016 06:21 PM, Patrick B wrote:
>>
>>
>> Not sure that would have mattered for the reasons below.
>>
>> You might want to take a look at the below:
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/wal.html
>>
>> In particular:
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/wal-intro.html
>>
>> Short version WAL files are essential to restoring and on the
>> originating server are recycled, subject to the configuration
>> parameters explained here:
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/wal-configuration.html
>>
>> So the wal archiving you have set up is not storing everything, it
>> removes older files over time?
>>
>>
>> Yes... it removes... I've changed to store them for up to 72h.
>
> You say it took 10 days to run the pg_basebackup, so I am not keeping
> the last 72 hrs is going to help.
Not only that, if you add up another 500GB to transfer over the WALs,
that might mean another 2 to 3 days to finish the transfer (and that if
it's only 500GB of WALs)
BTW, 2TB in 10 days means an avg speed of 2.3Mb/s. I guess this must be
some standby in a DR site without a dedicated network bandwidth.
Wouldn't it be faster to clone the disk locally, detach it and send it
over with a Courier? ;)
Regards,
--
Martín Marqués http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
