Re: > 16TB worth of data question

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.

> > 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.