On Jun 25, 2007, at 4:54 PM, Erik Jones wrote:
On Jun 25, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 16:00 -0500, Erik Jones wrote:
On Jun 25, 2007, at 3:40 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
If I'm correct, then for large databases wherein it can
take hours to take a base backup, is there anything to be
gained by
using incrementally updated backups?
If you are certain there are parts of the database not touched
at all
between backups. The only real way to be sure is to take file level
checksums, or you can trust file dates. Many backup solutions
can do
this for you.
Wait, um, what? I'm still not clear on why you would want to run a
backup of an already caught up standby server.
Sorry, misread your question.
While you are running a warm standby config, you will still want
to take
regular backups for recoverability and DR. These are additional
backups,
i.e they are not required to maintain the warm standby.
You can backup the Primary, or you can backup the Standby, so most
people will choose to backup the Standby to reduce the overhead on
the
Primary.
Ok, yeah, that's what I was thinking and is where we are headed in
the next month or so here at work: we already have a standby
running and will be adding a second standby server that we will be
using for snapshot backups (packaged with the pertinent wal
files...) as well as periodically bringing the second standby up to
run dumps from just to cover all of our bases and also to be able
to take our main primary server down for maintenance and still have
both a production and standby running. I guess I was really just
wanting to make sure I wasn't missing some other big usage for
incremental backups from the standby.
Note that (currently) once you bring a standby up you can't go back
to standby mode without restoring the filesystem level backup you
started with and replaying everything.
--
Jim Nasby jim@xxxxxxxxx
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
