I've set up a Postgres database on a server with 2 CPU cores, 4GB of RAM and an SSD volume (on top of RAID 10 of course). This is our (sort-of) "beefy" production database server (I can easily add more RAM, etc. when the time comes).

Now it's time to set up a backup Postgres server (not used for reads or anything else, just strictly a replication/backup). I don't want to have to fork out another $150/mo for the same exact setup for my backup server, and I know that a lot of the server resources used for a production database have to do with complicated queries, sequential scans, etc., so my thinking was that I could get away with a 512MB server with about 1/6 the I/O performance, and 1 CPU core.

Is that thinking correct, or does a replication/backup Postgres server typically need nearly the same specs as a production Postgres server?

Note: I'm using Postgres 9.2.4 with streaming (non-synchronous) replication on an Ubuntu 12.04.2 server.

1 Answer 1


It depends a great deal on your workload - the write volumes and write patterns on the master.

The standby is essentially doing continuous crash recovery. It reads write-ahead logs containing the changes the master made to the tables and applies that to its own tables. It does this using a single worker, so it doesn't benefit significantly from I/O subsystem concurrency.

The main thing a replica server needs is good random I/O performance. It doesn't need fast fsync() as much as the master does, unless you plan to fail over to it.

I'd start with a small machine, knowing that it's always easy to upgrade. If you do this, it's vital that you carefully monitor replication to make sure the standby isn't falling too far behind, or you make sure you have WAL archiving set up with abundant space to allow the standby to cope if it falls too far behind the master. Otherwise your replica will fall far enough behind that the master no longer has a record of all the changes required to get from where the standby is to the current master's state, and you have to re-initialise the standby. If you're using it for backups, you don't want this to happen.

  • Thanks, man. That makes 3 times you've been a terrific help.
    – orokusaki
    Commented Jun 17, 2013 at 1:03
  • @orokusaki Yeah, Craig tends to be a terrific help quite often :) You must be aware of the half sentence 'unless you plan to fail over to it'. If you decide to do this at a later point you will have to beef up the slave to about the same level the master is. Commented Jun 17, 2013 at 6:36
  • @dezso - thanks. I do intend to fail over to this additional server, but to do so manually (so I'll be able to upgrade the server and move the data into an SSD volume in about 30 min). It's not perfect, but it's I worry about all the things that can go wrong with fully automated failover. Down the road I'll automate the process when I have the resources and knowledge to do so comfortably, and when I have the mullah to run identical master/slave servers (could get expensive as I grow).
    – orokusaki
    Commented Jun 17, 2013 at 12:43
  • @orokusaki You're right to worry about all the things that can go wrong with fully automated failover. IMO using fully automated failover is crazy unless you do it as a routine part of your operations like Netflix does, forcing failovers during day-to-day operations. Otherwise it will hurt you when that under-tested fail-over script triggers. Commented Jun 17, 2013 at 23:01
  • That makes sense, and I'm ultra paranoid about data loss.
    – orokusaki
    Commented Jun 18, 2013 at 1:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.