Barman cloud plugin is a lot slower with archiving wal files #656
Description
We've slowly started to transition from embedded Barman to the Barman plugin. The migration works seamless when following the migration guide!
We do notice quite a big difference in archival times between both solutions.
When using the embedded Barman, it takes around0.6-0.7 seconds to archive a wal file.
When using the Barman plugin, it takes around 1.6-1.7 seconds to archive a wal file.
for testing I've used the same database with exactly the same configuration, except for the barman plugin.
On both clusters I used pgbench to generate a bunch of wal files.
On the left is the Barman plugin setup, on the right the embedded Barman setup.
Resources on the postgres container and plugin-barman-cloud container are equal as well:
Have I missed something when migrating to the Barman plugin? It just doesn't feel right that with the plugin archiving is about 166% slower.
I'm using release v0.9.0 of the barman plugin and 1.26.1 of the operator.