> > For now, I only could get good performance with bacula and
> postgresql
> > when disabling fsync...
>
>
> Isn't that less safe?
Most definitly.
FWIW, I'm getting pretty good speeds with Bacula and PostgreSQL on a
reasonably small db (file table about 40 million rows, filename about
5.2 million and path 1.5 million).
Config changes are increasing shared mem and work mems, fsm pages,
wal_sync_method=fdatasync, wal_buffers=16, checkpoint_segments=8,
default_with_oids=off (before creating the bacula tables, so they don't
use oids).
Used to run with full_pages_writes=off, but not anymore since it's not
safe.
> Also planning to check commit_delay and see if that helps.
> I will try to avoid 2 or more machines backing up at the same
> time.. plus in a couple of weeks I should have a better
> machine for the DB anyways..
Bacula already serializes access to the database (they have to support
mysql/myisam), so this shouldn't help. Actually, it might well hurt by
introducing extra delays.
> I only wonder what is safer.. using a second or two in
> commit_delay or using
> fsync = off.. Anyone cares to comment?
Absolutely a commit_delay.
//Magnus
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
