On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:07:21AM +0200, Volkan YAZICI wrote:
>> In the company, we're facing with serious disk space problems which
>> is not caused by PostgreSQL, but the nature of our data. Database
>> sizes are around 200-300GB, which is relatively not that much, but
>> databases require strict backup policies:
>> - Incremental backup for each day. (250GB)
> What exactly does this mean in the context of PostgreSQL? We don't,
> as far as I've been able to determine, support this in either the
> community branch or even in any proprietary one.
I tried to mean WAL shipping in here. (You know, "business terminology"
for n00b boss staff.)
>> - Full backup for each week of the last month. (4 x 250GB)
>> - Full backup for each month of the last year. (12 x 250GB)
>> As a result, we require a space of size (roughly)
>> 250 + 4x250 + 12x250 = 17x250 = 4250GB = 4.15TB
>> for each server per year. Considering we have ~15 servers,
>> 15x4250 = 63750 = 62.25TB
> SATA disk space is quite cheap these days, so unless something is very
> badly wrong with your funding model, this is not really a problem.
Umm... A minority of the servers have SATA interface. (Most of 'em use
SAS drives and SAN systems.)
> Here's one outfit that will build and configure storage hardware for
Interesting I'll check it out.
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Jonah H. Harris||Date: 2008-12-22 19:13:55|
|Subject: Re: How are locks managed in PG?|
|Previous:||From: Shane Wright||Date: 2008-12-22 18:16:43|
|Subject: Using the wrong index (very suboptimal), why?|