Martin Eriksson m.eriksson at albourne.com
Tue Aug 5 00:19:40 PDT 2008
Sorry,

I should mention that this is Postgres 8.2.4, and Slony 1.2.14

Martin Eriksson wrote:
> Hi everyone.
>
> I've been using slonly for a while now and feel pretty confident with 
> what im doing but I can not understand what is going now!
>
> current setup:
> 1 Master
> 2 slave1 (provider = 1)
> 3 slave2 (provider = 1)
>
> adding a new node 4  (provider = 1)
>
> machines on same hardware, all machines are pretty nice machines, 8 
> gigs of ram in each machine
> master got 6 gigs allocated to postgres, slave machines got 3.2 gigs 
> allocated. all running ubuntu 64 bit
>
> database is a total of 7.9 gigs (including the slony schema, total 
> data that need to be replicated around 3.5 gigs)
>
> master and slave 1 are sitting next to each other connected with a 1 
> GB/s line on a separate interface.
>
> now node 4, I created a new postgres installation on slave 1 machine, 
> running on different port same memory allocation (3.2 gigs) so total 
> usage of memory on that machine by the two postgres servers is 6.4 gig 
> (still 1.4 gig free)
>
> On saturday I did sync up node 2 from scratch and it toke a total of 
> 20 minutes.
>
> Sunday afternoon database was put in production and being used, its 
> not a overly used database around 18000, slony event per 24h with a 
> total of 2000-3000 db commits on Master per 24h
>
> So yesterday morning I started to sync node 4, and now 22h later it is 
> still running!!! and its only 1/3rd done!!!
>
> does anyone got a good explination for this?
>
> I look on the slave 2 machine, 0.2-0.4 load, memory is available, only 
> using a fraction of the bandwidth, io-stats are down. It is more or 
> less the same for the Master as low cpu load and low io load, and low 
> bandwidth usage.
>
> looking on the db, it appear that its trying to do EVERYTHING in a 
> single transaction as tables that have been copied are still showing 
> up as count(*) = 0, is there a way to not do everything in a single 
> transaction??
>
> or anyone got some other idea??
>
> _______________________________________________
> Slony1-general mailing list
> Slony1-general at lists.slony.info
> http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general



More information about the Slony1-general mailing list