Re: > 16TB worth of data question

On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 10:31, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
> At 08:13 AM 4/22/2003 -0500, Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
> >That's the question...That 2 TB of data is nothing but documents and
> >images. I'm under the perception that if that gets parked on a fibre
> >channel disk array/ SAN the data will be pretty safe, and the server
> >mostly replaceable at that time. Storage is my worry more than
> >processing power. I don't think I'm on crack here...?
>
> How about backups? Backing up 2-16TB needs a bit more planning and design.
The proposed solution here is to have the raid controller mirror accross
the street to a similar system. At what point do off line backups become
pointless?

>
> > > I think I've spent more time chasing various people's hardware failures
> > > lately than I have in investigating real Postgres bugs. I keep
> > > volunteering to look at failures because I figure there are still some
> > > data-loss bugs to be found, but I am coming to have a *real* low opinion
> > > of off-the-shelf PC hardware.
> > >
> > > regards, tom lane
>
> Well there's off-the-shelf x86 desktop PC hardware, and there's
> off-the-shelf x86 server hardware.
>
> In my experience for name brands it's about 1/7 DOA for the former, and 0
> for the latter. There's a big diff in dependability. The latter tend to
> keep running for many years, typically being retired for no fault of their own.
>
> Then there are users who stick no name memory into their servers or "servers".
>
> Regards,
> Link.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
--
Jeremiah Jahn <jeremiah(at)cs(dot)earlham(dot)edu>