We're evaluating two tools incremental backup: MySQL Enterprise Backup and Percona XtraBackup. The only comparison I found is by Percona which has obvious cause for bias From this comparison, Percona XtraBackup is better suited for incremental backups as it is faster and supports streaming compression.
Which solution is likely to be more reliable and less of a load on the server.
-
I would like to understand if there can be trouble when working with one of these tools.
For example, I accidentally stumbled upon "Note" on this page which says that under high load on the server, creating a backup can, in principle will fail.
-
Load on the server. This is especially important for Backup-point-in-time, because it will allow you to execute it more often.
Best Answer
ZFS beats both by light years with snapshots and incremental transfers and transparent compression.
ZFS snapshots can be transferred incrementally. You only transfer the blocks that have changed between the two snapshots. And you get lz4 compression on everything for close to free, and the snapshot sending doesn't have to decompress and recompress.
It is guaranteed to be consistent. ZFS being copy-on-write, either the entire transaction sticks, or the entire transaction is lost, nothing in-between. Unless, of course, you disabled safeties at database level, in which case all bets are off anyway. - gordan-bobic