Re: Do we need more emphasis on backup?

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> We do need to point out that you're only as reliable as your last
> backup. I'm not sure exactly where to say this.
[snip]
>

Hmph. Backups are for mitigation against a catastrophic failure
destroying or corrupting main storage. And even then: Subtle errors
can induce data corruption that may go un-noticed until it's too late.
(I.e.: The last correct backups have been over-written, retired, so
old they've become unreadable, so old the data's no longer useful,
etc.)

My position is that your data is only as reliable as your hardware,
period. Use cheap (usually PC, sorry) hardware and, well... I wonder
how many people are aware of the fact that the cheaper PCs don't even
have parity memory anymore? Then there are the issues with IDE
drives. (Don't recall those, exactly - don't use 'em.)

One of the other mailing lists I'm on: The project developer, whenever
somebody comes on list and says "Your code is blowing up, losing stuff,
corrupting stuff," or whatever, first asks "What hardware are you
running?" IIRC, he gives short shrift to complainants running
inexpensive PC hardware. He won't spend any time on the complaint
until they prove it's *not* their hardware.

Jim