On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Justin Ryan <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Daniel Farina <[email protected]> wrote: > > [ .. snip .. ] > >> >> There is a patch that works with S3 alone (which is why it is not >> committed to main-line) that does some download validation. It's what >> I use at Heroku: >> >> https://github.com/fdr/wal-e/tree/heroku-hacks-v0.8 >> >> However, I have not even once seen this defect myself. >> > > Thanks, we are using S3, I'll give this a shot!
Let me know how it turns out. >> > I'm running into this with a large ~1TB database that takes the better >> > part >> > of a day to run each of a backup-push and a backup-fetch, and has for >> > the >> > past several days not been able to catch up despite a constant >> > processing of >> > WAL files with _tons_ of these errors about transaction 0 interspersed. >> > >> > If I remove the recovery_command, I can start the database and >> > communicate >> > with it, so it seems odd that this would be corruption in the >> > backup-push or >> > fetch, but I certainly haven't tried to access or manipulate all of the >> > records, so it's possible. >> >> What version of WAL-E? Also modern v0.8 versions sport what is >> nominally a much faster parallel and pipelined WAL download routines. > > Worth looking into, I seem to be using 0.7.2 which is the latest in PyPI. There is no v0.8 release proper, although the fact that it's pretty much compatible (but has one new dependency) and has this optimization has gotten me thinking about releasing it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "wal-e" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
