[Bucardo-general] Bucardo vs. rubyrep
listudo at bestsolution.at
Wed Sep 8 14:46:25 UTC 2010
On 09/08/2010 01:36 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> That said, bucardo only stores the 'things2replicate' as a bucardo_delta
> table that has only the primary key of the rows that need replicating.
> If using pushdelta replication (master-slave) rather than swap
> (master-master) the memory requirements for my DB replicating 6m rows in
> one chunk using composite and compound primary keys is only 1.9G RAM as
> the actual row copy is done using DELETE .. COPY.
But - if I get you right - you don't use master-master then?
> No it doesn't thank $deity.. if it did I'd be currently copying half a
> terrabyte of data over a 100k hi latency link.
hehe, must be a very powerful being then :-)
> Already gave ideas above. Using swap method (master-master) the server
> has to grab the rows and compare/insert/update which seems to consume
> all the memory the same 6m rows grows the process to 20G.
ok, 20GB is quite a lot, but it is doable after all. Even though this
will be heavily influenced by hardware, can you give a very rough
estimation how long it takes to process the 20 gigs? (In other words:
can it work in reasonable time from the performance side?)
>> #5 commercial support
>> Well, the level of support for rubyrep is just ... "limited". So just in
>> case we need specific support, is there any kind of commercial support
>> for bucardo?
> I can't answer that but I can tell you I hack the code (a little) and
> Greg who is the main developer is responsive within 24 hours or so (ie
> sometimes seconds, other times 'tomorrow') and when we found a bug in
> the composite primary key storage the other day a patch was out within
> 48 hours.
This sounds very good then.
Thanks for your insights!
Udo Rader, CTO
More information about the Bucardo-general