@Adrian,
> Seems to me the settings for nice and ionice above would, on a busy > machine, slow down the transfer. Has there always been a notable time > difference in the transfer or has it gotten worse over time? > > Yep... I also thought about that. Specially because the master is constantly getting 100% of IO (we use SATA disks still)... I'm thinking about removing that `ionice` command... I don't need to restart Postgres eh?? Just reload the confs? @John R Pierce, normally, you would ship the archived wal files to a file server via > cp-over-nfs or scp, and have the slaves access them as needed via the > recovery.conf What if the NFS server goes down? Networking goes down? We have had that kind of problem in the past, that's why I'm shipping the wal_files to each slave, separately. Also, to have an extra copy of them. @Venkata Balaji N, Not sure why the script is so complex. Do you see any messages in the > postgresql log file on master ? and on slave ? which indicates the reason > for delayed shipping of WAL archives. Did you notice any network level > issues ? Yes the script is complex.. I've hidden almost all of it for privacy purpose.. sorry.... I don't see any messages on the log files... not on the master and not on the slaves as well. I just see the message of the wal_files being successfully shipped to the slaves. Also, no networking level issues.. because I got four slaves with streaming replication and all of them are working fine... also, my backup server has never failed... so no networking issues. Thanks, Patrick
