On Jan 18, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Brian Wipf wrote:
On 18-Jan-08, at 2:32 PM, Erik Jones wrote:
What worries me is, that since I have a verified case of rsync
thinking it had successfully transferred a WAL, the same may have
happened with these files during the base backup. Does that
warning, in fact, entail that there were catalog entries for those
files, but that the file was not there, and by "fixing" it the
server just created empty files?
We archive WALs directly to an NFS mount. We once had a zero-byte
WAL file archived, which I believe was the result of a temporary
issue with the NFS mount. We had to perform a new base backup since
the WAL was deleted/reused by PG because it was told it was
archived successfully. It sounds similar to the problem you
experienced. Do you rsync to an NFS mount?
If this issue is occurring when archiving WALs, I agree that it
could be occurring when trying to get a base backup.
For our primary, er, main, onsite standby server that's also what we
do. But, this was a co-location to co-location transfer so there was
no NFS mount, it was a direct rsync to the server at the other co-
location. For WAL files, I've already decided to write a WALShipper
utility that will handle shipping WALs to multiple standbys with
verfication, but for the base backup, this is distressing. We do
have the option to do the base backup to a portable USB drive and
then carry it to the second co-lo for now. But, pretty soon we're
going to be surpassing the available limits in portably drive
capacity unless we invest in tape drives.
Erik Jones
DBA | Emma®
erik@xxxxxxxxxx
800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888
615.292.0777 (fax)
Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style.
Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org/
