[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joshua D. Drake") writes: >>So, my question is this: My server currently works great, >>performance wise. I need to add fail-over capability, but I'm >>afraid that introducing a stressful task such as replication will >>hurt my server's performance. Is there any foundation to my fears? I >>don't need to replicate the archived log data because I can easily >>restore that in a separate step from the nightly backup if disaster >>occurs. Also, my database load is largely selects. My application >>works great with PostgreSQL 7.3 and 7.4, but I'm currently using >>7.3. >> >>I'm eager to hear your thoughts and experiences, >> > Well with replicator you are going to take a pretty big hit > initially during the full sync but then you could use batch > replication and only replicate every 2-3 hours. > > I am pretty sure Slony has similar capabilities.
Yes, similar capabilities, similar "pretty big hit." There's a downside to "batch replication" that some of the data structures grow in size if you have appreciable periods between batches. -- (format nil "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" "cbbrowne" "acm.org") http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/slony.html Rules of the Evil Overlord #78. "I will not tell my Legions of Terror "And he must be taken alive!" The command will be: ``And try to take him alive if it is reasonably practical.''" <http://www.eviloverlord.com/> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org