On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 12:05 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 11:48 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote: >> >> I'm trying to do a parallel restore with pg_restore -j but I'm only >> >> seeing one CPU being used really. The file is custom format, but was >> >> made by pg_dump for pgsql 8.3. Is that a problem? Do I need a backup >> >> made with 8.4 to run parallel restore? >> > >> > Yes I believe but I don't recall. You could dump the TOC and note >> > differences. >> >> I kinda figured, I'm making a dump with pg84 now to test with. I'm >> really hoping for a noticeable improvement in restore times, as we're >> in the 1.5 to 2 hour range right now. >> > > If you have the concurrency and disk IO, you should get that down below > 30 minutes. On our two big servers we have 12 Disk RAID-10 for pgdata, and 2 disk RAID-1 for pg_xlog, and 8 cores. What's a good -j number to start at there? I'm leaning towards 8 or 10 or 12 for testing. Woohoo late night testing. :) -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
