On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Renato Oliveira <renato.oliveira@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Greg, > > Thank you very much for your input. > I agree with you and I do understand where you are coming from. > > I do agree that in order to transition without a noticeable downtime the application would need to be built for that. > > Which one works best: bucardo, slony or Londiste? > > I have researched Slony and Bucardo but have not heard of Londiste before. > > How many people are using all three of them and their review have you heard anything about that? I run slony. On our regular db there are about 2000 relations, about 1200 of those are indexes, so slony has to worry about 800 or so relations. It has no problem with that. On another machine that has some 45k relations in addition to the 2000 base relations. That slony instance takes 3.5 hours to run the same create set that takes 2 minutes on the machine with just 2000 relations. Slony should be able to work for you. See if you can schedule it so you start your subscription right when you're entering your lowest throughput window. Your real bottleneck here is that source database with a single hard drive. That's going to limit your speed of subscription by quite a bit. -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
