Re: > 16TB worth of data question

The only issue with this is that it is difficult to recomend to our
clients who depend on bob and cuz'n joe to support their hardware. We
are kinda in the business of recomending the HW our clients need, and
not getting into the support side of it. Althoguh this might be a decent
option.

thanx,
-jj-

PS. My office already this whole black and silver motif going on, and
purplely blue would kinda clash.

On Mon, 2003-04-21 at 15:30, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On 21 Apr 2003, Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
>
> > I have a system that will store about 2TB+ of images per year in a PG
> > database. Linux unfortunatly has the 16TB limit for 32bit systems. Not
> > really sure what should be done here. Would life better to not store the
> > images as BLOBS, and instead come up with some complicated way to only
> > store the location in the database, or is there someway to have postgres
> > handle this somehow? What are other people out there doing about this
> > sort of thing?
>
> Then why not start right out on 64 bit systems? Low end 64 bit sparcs
> Ultra 60 type stuff) aren't too expensive, and debian and a few other
> flavors seem to run quite quickly on Sparc hardware.
>
> There's also 64 mainframe linux, and a couple of other 64 bit platforms
> that are fairly mature, IBM's Power Pc based systems run Linux as well.
>
> If you're gonna play with big datasets, that's the one time that 64 bit
> really starts to have advantages, and let's face it, you're gonna go there
> eventually anyway, might as well get a head start now.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
--
Jeremiah Jahn <jeremiah(at)cs(dot)earlham(dot)edu>