Re: db recovery after raid5 failure

> average about two drive failures a monthYou must be having a real huge postgres setup with several hundreds of drives to have such high frequency of failure.

> As a place to put "one more> copy" it might make sense, as long as it had strong encryption.I didn't expand but that's what I meant. The copy in cloud to be your final resort incase the LAN and the WAN copy both fail. You get an extra copy in a different geographic location for some catastrophic event.

> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:46:46 -0500
> From: Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov
> To: b_ki(at)hotmail(dot)com; pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org; qcor(at)vp(dot)pl
> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] db recovery after raid5 failure
>
> Balkrishna Sharma <b_ki(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > If the database is not extremely huge, makes you wonder what does
> > a RAID actually give us.
>
> Well, RAID5 gives you a situations where you must have a second
> drive fail before recovery for the first failure is complete, versus
> being instantly dead on a single-drive failure. RAID6 requires
> three drives to fail in close succession (assuming a hot spare which
> initiates recovery on failure). RAID10 requires that two paired
> drives fail. We have about 100 database servers, and probably
> average about two drive failures a month; having any down time from
> them is rare because of RAID (and that's with us primarily using
> RAID5).
>
> > A robust near-realtime replication setup (say PITR + cloud)
> > may be good enough against once in a few years of disk
> > failure.atleast you don't add another point of failure that you
> > (your database/OS) can't do anything about.
>
> You've totally lost me there. "The cloud" still uses similar
> techniques, just out of your sight and control. If you assume that
> whoever is running it can do it better than you can, that's one
> thing; just don't assume it's magic. The machines in my shop are
> what I *can* do something about. Management here insists on near-
> real-time backup using at least two completely independent
> techniques to multiple machines in multiple buildings, with
> continuous testing that all backups actually restore. If we were to
> float data off into a cloud somewhere, I can guarantee we wouldn't
> count on it without an alternative. As a place to put "one more
> copy" it might make sense, as long as it had strong encryption.
> (Again, you've lost all control over who has what access once you
> send it into the cloud.)
>
> -Kevin
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin

_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5