Re: need for in-place upgrades

ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net (Ron Johnson) wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 16:29, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 10:52:45AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>
>> > So instead of 1TB of 15K fiber channel disks (and the requisite
>> > controllers, shelves, RAID overhead, etc), we'd need *two* TB of
>> > 15K fiber channel disks (and the requisite controllers, shelves,
>> > RAID overhead, etc) just for the 1 time per year when we'd upgrade
>> > PostgreSQL?
>>
>> Nope. You also need it for the time when your vendor sells
>> controllers or chips or whatever with known flaws, and you end up
>> having hardware that falls over 8 or 9 times in a row.
>
> ????

This of course never happens in real life; expensive hardware is
_always_ UTTERLY reliable.

And the hardware vendors all have the same high standards as, well,
certain database vendors we might think of.

After all, Oracle and MySQL AB would surely never mislead their
customers about the merits of their database products any more than
HP, Sun, or IBM would about the possibility of their hardware having
tiny flaws.

And I would /never/ claim to have lost sleep as a result of flakey
hardware. Particularly not when it's a HA fibrechannel array. I'm
/sure/ that has never happened to anyone. [The irony herre should be
causing people to say "ow!"]
--
"cbbrowne","@","cbbrowne.com"
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/finances.html
"XML combines all the inefficiency of text-based formats with most of the
unreadability of binary formats :-) " -- Oren Tirosh