-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/02/07 12:07, Lincoln Yeoh wrote: > At 09:36 AM 2/2/2007, Ron Johnson wrote: >> > >> > OTOH, I still take a full base backup every night and keep ten days >> > worth of WAL files on our backup server, so I guess maybe I don't >> > *completely* trust it :-) >> >> Or you don't trust tape to be 100% reliable. > > Well so far tapes get chewed up by drives at intervals that are not far > apart enough for me. And I've heard horror stories of tapes not being > restorable using a different drive but same model etc (just not the same > physical drive used for the backup). > > I suppose these problems are fixed by now in the latest tape drives, or > were just "urban legends"? Right? *looks about nervously*... Depends on the tape system. We've been using DLT (and SuperDLT) for years and have never had any problems. > Nowadays I also wonder about the restoration times of say 200GB or even > TBs of data from backups. More fun if there are Very Important and > Influential People popping in every 15 minutes to ask whether it's done > yet. That's a problem with pg. pg_dump is single-threaded and can only write out to one file/device. Now that PITR-from-WAL is in place, there are people who swear that tarring up data directories, and then WAL-log rolling them forward works perfectly. If your database uses tablespaces and is spread across multiple disk devices, then you could probably speed the backup/restore by parallel tarring each device data tree to it's own tape drive. 6 LTO tape drives and your TB database gets backed up up right quickly. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFw4J2S9HxQb37XmcRAkcvAKDCyMOkc2iRd8S6tW66su3pcRIAhQCgyc/0 CSrDgO5lnW+2KZpduyVgFJM= =c4Lx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
