> > 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
