scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com ("Scott Marlowe") writes:
> I assume hardware failure rates are zero, until there is one. Then I
> restore from a known good backup. compressed file systems have little
> to do with that.
There's a way that compressed filesystems might *help* with a risk
By reducing the number of disk drives required to hold the data, you
may be reducing the risk of enough of them failing to invalidate the
If a RAID array is involved, where *some* failures may be silently
coped with, I could readily see this *improving* reliability, in most
This is at least *vaguely* similar to the way that aircraft have moved
from requiring rather large numbers of engines for cross-Atlantic
trips to requiring just 2.
In the distant past, the engines were sufficiently unreliable that you
wanted to have at least 4 in order to be reasonably assured that you
could limp along with at least 2.
With increases in engine reliability, it's now considered preferable
to have *just* 2 engines, as having 4 means doubling the risk of there
being a failure.
Disk drives and jet engines are hardly the same thing, but I suspect
the analogy fits.
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="linuxfinances.info" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
Why do they put Braille dots on the keypad of the drive-up ATM?
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Scott Marlowe||Date: 2008-10-31 18:27:27|
|Subject: Re: Connections getting stuck sending data to client|
|Previous:||From: D. Dante Lorenso||Date: 2008-10-31 17:35:28|
|Subject: Re: Equivalent for AUTOINCREMENT?|