| From: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Don Vaillancourt <donv(at)webimpact(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [OFF-TOPIC] - Known maximum size of the |
| Date: | 2004-05-07 23:35:44 |
| Message-ID: | 409C1D50.4010602@bigfoot.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-performance |
Don Vaillancourt wrote:
>
> Here's a question a little off-topic.
>
> What would a 32TB database hardware configuration look like. I'm
> assuming 200GB hard-drives which would total 160 of them. Double that
> if you mirror them.
>
> Am I correct?
Why do you have to mirror them ? Usually a SAN make data redundancy
using a RAID 4 or 5, this depend if you need read performances or
write performances, in the case of Red Sherif I guess that guys are
using RAID 50 ( 0 + 5 ) sets so what you "waste" is a disk for each
set.
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Paul Ganainm | 2004-05-09 17:47:29 | Re: article: Open source database improvements grow |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2004-05-07 12:48:40 | Re: I understand now |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anderson Boechat Lopes | 2004-05-10 14:00:43 | Why queries takes too much time to execute? |
| Previous Message | Bricklen | 2004-05-07 16:47:09 | Re: Help how to tune-up my Database |