* Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> [100412 07:10]: > I think we need to investigate this more. It's not going to look good > for the project if people find that a hot standby server runs two > orders of magnitude slower than the primary.
Yes, it's not "good", but it's a known problem. We've had people complaining that wal-replay can't keep up with a wal stream from a heavy server. The master producing the wal stream has $XXX seperate read/modify processes working over the data dir, and is bottle-necked by the serialized WAL stream. All the seek+read delays are parallized and overlapping. But on the slave (traditionally PITR slave, now also HS/SR), has al lthat read-modify-write happening in a single thread fasion, meaning that WAL record $X+1 waits until the buffer $X needs to modify is read in. All the seek+read delays are serialized. You can optimize that by keepdng more of them in buffers (shared, or OS cache), but the WAL producer, by it's very nature being a multi-task-io-load producing random read/write is always going to go quicker than single-stream random-io WAL consumer... a. -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, ai...@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
Description: Digital signature