On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:15 AM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote:
>> Considering that parallell base backups would be io-bound (or >> network-bound), there is little need to actually run them in parallell > > That's not actually true. Backups at the moment are CPU-bound, and > running them in parallel is one way to make them closer to I/O-bound, > which is what they *should* be. Remember, we're talking about filesystem base backups here. If you're CPU can't handle a stream from disk -> network, byte for byte (maybe encrypting it), then you've spend *WAAAAY* to much on your storage sub-system, and way to little on CPU. I can see trying to "parallize" the base backup such that each table-space could be run concurrently, but that's about it. > There are other proposals out there, and some work being done, to make > backups less dependent on CPU, among them: > > - Making the on-disk representation smaller > - Making COPY more efficient > > As far as I know, none of this work is public yet. pg_dump is another story. But it's not related to base backups for PIT Recovery/Replication. a. -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, ai...@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers