X-POP3-Server: Host ([mail.hitechroboticsystemz.com]) 	by hitechgears.com (PostMaster POP3 Login [hrs@hitechroboticsystemz.com] [192.168.0.25]); 	Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:42:15 +0530
Return-Path: <pgsql-general-owner+m178353@postgresql.org>
Received: from mx2.hub.org [200.46.204.254] by dr178.cyberspaceindia.com with SMTP;
   Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:36:52 +0530
Received: from postgresql.org (mail.postgresql.org [200.46.204.86])
	by mx2.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A4103EAF759;
	Tue,  2 Aug 2011 15:06:46 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0260B5DC00
	for <pgsql-general-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>; Tue,  2 Aug 2011 15:06:08 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
 by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id 65860-08
 for <pgsql-general-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
 Tue,  2 Aug 2011 18:06:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from yeni.gunduz.org (ns1.gunduz.org [77.79.103.58])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 590A2B5DBC8
	for <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>; Tue,  2 Aug 2011 15:06:01 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from [192.168.100.6] (evim.gunduz.org [78.189.47.167])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by yeni.gunduz.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 264CD61D7F;
	Tue,  2 Aug 2011 21:05:05 +0300 (EEST)
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 9.0 Streaming Replication Problem to two slaves
From: Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?= <devrim@gunduz.org>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Best <mbest@pendragon.org>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <CAOR=d=3Xe0EGsW6PC9in2R4iC+_T7AP3SdZX60Vj7t7+tFe+jA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E2DAA04.9000909@pendragon.org>
	 <4E38169E.1090802@pendragon.org>
	 <CAOR=d=3Xe0EGsW6PC9in2R4iC+_T7AP3SdZX60Vj7t7+tFe+jA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-G8xkn4enRFCnzmEzX832"
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 21:05:47 +0300
Message-ID: <1312308347.2538.56.camel@lenovo01-laptop03.gunduz.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 (2.32.2-1.fc14)
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.986 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
 RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.806, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA=0.72
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Mailing-List: pgsql-general
List-Archive: <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general>
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=help>
List-ID: <pgsql-general.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=sub%20pgsql-general>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-general>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
X-Declude-Sender: pgsql-general-owner+m178353@postgresql.org [200.46.204.254]
X-Declude-Spoolname: 41089371.eml
X-Declude-RefID: str=0001.0A090203.4E383CC6.0075:SCGSTAT706138,ss=1,fgs=1024
X-Declude-Note: Scanned by Declude 4.10.72 "http://www.declude.com/x-note.htm"
X-Declude-Scan: Incoming Score [-2] at 23:37:04 on 02 Aug 2011
X-Declude-Tests: NOABUSE [2], SUBCHARS-55 [1], SUBCHARS-60 [1], FROMNOMATCH [2], HAM-INDICATOR [-10], FILTER-SUBJECT [2], FILTER-COUNTRY [3]
X-Country-Chain: TURKEY->PANAMA->destination
X-Declude-Code: 1f
X-HELO: mx2.hub.org
X-Identity: 200.46.204.254 | mx2.hub.org | postgresql.org
X-Rcpt-To: <anisha.kaul@hitechroboticsystemz.com>
X-SmarterMail-Spam: Declude: -2
X-SmarterMail-TotalSpamWeight: -2

--=-G8xkn4enRFCnzmEzX832
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 11:55 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:

> > Is this likely that the disks are too slow on the replication=20
> > servers, or is something else happening, such as the restoration of
> logs is considerably slower than on the primary?
>=20
> Could be.  Are the drives on the slaves much slower?  I'd imagine a
> slave with the same drive setup would be able to keep up.=20

We have a customer who generates 150+ xlogs per minute under daily load,
and our first HS installation failed just because of :

* Network was slow (10 Mbit), so could not keep up with WAL files.
* Disks were also slow on slave.

So yeah, that could be it.

Regards,
--=20
Devrim G=C3=9CND=C3=9CZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Dan=C4=B1=C5=9Fman=C4=B1/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org  Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz

--=-G8xkn4enRFCnzmEzX832
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAk44PHcACgkQtl86P3SPfQ64QwCffbbWWyvi0KM5jHK7X8r/3DGJ
YbsAnjLD7a2JNt7Y76h6GAmYt95ml8RX
=0EtA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-G8xkn4enRFCnzmEzX832--
