El 04/07/16 a las 01:06, Adrian Klaver escribió: > On 07/03/2016 06:21 PM, Patrick B wrote: >> >> >> Not sure that would have mattered for the reasons below. >> >> You might want to take a look at the below: >> >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/wal.html >> >> In particular: >> >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/wal-intro.html >> >> Short version WAL files are essential to restoring and on the >> originating server are recycled, subject to the configuration >> parameters explained here: >> >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/wal-configuration.html >> >> So the wal archiving you have set up is not storing everything, it >> removes older files over time? >> >> >> Yes... it removes... I've changed to store them for up to 72h. > > You say it took 10 days to run the pg_basebackup, so I am not keeping > the last 72 hrs is going to help. Not only that, if you add up another 500GB to transfer over the WALs, that might mean another 2 to 3 days to finish the transfer (and that if it's only 500GB of WALs) BTW, 2TB in 10 days means an avg speed of 2.3Mb/s. I guess this must be some standby in a DR site without a dedicated network bandwidth. Wouldn't it be faster to clone the disk locally, detach it and send it over with a Courier? ;) Regards, -- Martín Marqués http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
