On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 13:57 -0800, Scott Silva wrote: > on 2-18-2009 1:45 PM Scott Silva spake the following: > > on 2-18-2009 1:36 PM Ian Forde spake the following: > >> On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 15:35 -0500, Toby Bluhm wrote: > >>> For a speedy backup, could put the db on LVM. Then your procedure would > >>> be shutdown/freeze db, make lv snapshot, startup/unfreeze db, > >>> rsync/backup data, remove snapshot. > >> That's what I'd suggest too, but be warned that performance on that > >> database (if gets to be of any size to be useful) would completely > >> suck... not unlike driving at 90mph and with the ebrake on and > >> constantly up-and-down-shifting... > >> > >> -I > > > > Would a decent alternative be a master/slave, with the dumps being done > > from the slave. That way if the slave bogs down during the dump, it can catch > > up afterwards. The master shouldn't slow down at all, or very minimally as it > > is caching the slave transactions. > > > One too many "would's"... ;) That would work, and I've done that (though not at the 5-minute interval) in production environments. But since the OP hasn't responded to this thread with any type of follow-up detail (like the size of the db), I'm wondering how much time I want to spend putting out possible solutions... -I