Re: Inherited an 18TB DB & need to backup

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Inherited an 18TB DB & need to backup

Christoph Berg-3
Re: Rory Campbell-Lange
> On 15/05/20, Suhail Bamzena ([hidden email]) wrote:
> > Hello All,
> > I have very recently inherited an 18 TB DB that is running version 9.2.

Push hard to get that upgraded to a supported version.

Christoph


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Inherited an 18TB DB & need to backup

Jan Karremans
Hi Suhail,

That is not an issue. We have customers backing up Postgres databases up to 80 TB.

Mit freundlichem Gruß, kind regards,




Jan Karremans
Director of Sales Engineering, EMEA
Senior Sales Engineer DACH-Region
EDB Postgres Advanced Server Professional
-- Postgres Everywhere --

 Oracle ACE Alumni 

- Deutsch ist nicht meine Muttersprache, bitte verzeihen Sie Verstöße gegen die Rechtschreibung -

Mobile: +31-(0)6-1638 9607

http://www.enterprisedb.com/

Don't walk behind me; I may not lead.
Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow.
Just walk beside me and be my friend.
+*+ Albert Camus +*+

Op 15 mei 2020, om 15:23 heeft Suhail Bamzena <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

Hi Christoph
Thats very high on my agenda.. but need to make sure i can backup this beast to start with..

On Fri, 15 May 2020, 17:08 Christoph Berg, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Re: Rory Campbell-Lange
> On 15/05/20, Suhail Bamzena ([hidden email]) wrote:
> > Hello All,
> > I have very recently inherited an 18 TB DB that is running version 9.2.

Push hard to get that upgraded to a supported version.

Christoph

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Inherited an 18TB DB & need to backup

Wolff, Ken L
In reply to this post by Christoph Berg-3

Depending on your storage subsystem, perhaps storage-level snapshots might be an option?  They often seem to be the best choice for VLDBs.

 

From: Suhail Bamzena <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 7:23 AM
To: Christoph Berg <[hidden email]>
Cc: Rory Campbell-Lange <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Inherited an 18TB DB & need to backup

 

Hi Christoph

Thats very high on my agenda.. but need to make sure i can backup this beast to start with..

On Fri, 15 May 2020, 17:08 Christoph Berg, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Re: Rory Campbell-Lange
> On 15/05/20, Suhail Bamzena ([hidden email]) wrote:
> > Hello All,
> > I have very recently inherited an 18 TB DB that is running version 9.2.

Push hard to get that upgraded to a supported version.

Christoph

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Inherited an 18TB DB & need to backup

Ravi Krishna-15
In reply to this post by Jan Karremans
IMO a database of this size should only be backed up in s3.  pgbackrest has support for backup to s3.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Inherited an 18TB DB & need to backup

Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum-4


On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 3:49 PM Ravi Krishna <[hidden email]> wrote:
IMO a database of this size should only be backed up in s3.  pgbackrest has support for backup to s3.

Why should the backup land in S3, and not local somewhere?
Any good reason why one should pay for the additional storage and transfer costs?

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group
European PostgreSQL User Group - Board of Directors
Volunteer Regional Contact, Germany - PostgreSQL Project
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Inherited an 18TB DB & need to backup

Scottix
Also when you get in the multi TB data storage the bill gets a little harder to digest in S3.

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:49 Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 7:52 PM Ravi Krishna <[hidden email]> wrote:

Why should the backup land in S3, and not local somewhere?
Any good reason why one should pay for the additional storage and transfer costs?

Good question. The key point in my statement was "db of this size".

The problem with local backup is that space is not infinite. If your business requires you to
store backups for say 7 years, storing it locally will be a problem.  In one large financial
company I use to work, full backup was used to store old data.
(except last 30 days where WAL logs were used for a real PIT).  We use to store full backups
for about 60 days and then send older backup to an off site storage.  Nothing is free.

I remember a case where we were requested by business to restore a db of a given date two yrs
prior as they had to look at old data. It took us close to 96 hrs to give the users the required database.

S3 storage is ridiculously cheap.  Off site storage companies like Iron Mountain should find their client base
ditching them big time.

If your database is running somewhere in the cloud, then yes, that might make
sense. If your database runs in your own data center, then usually you also have
disk space available there. Plus a transfer out of your data center will take time.

There is no "per se" recommendation to move data to S3. And there might be
additional requirements like data protection laws, encryption requirements ect.

--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group
European PostgreSQL User Group - Board of Directors
Volunteer Regional Contact, Germany - PostgreSQL Project
--
T: @Thaumion
IG: Thaumion
[hidden email]