Re: > 16TB worth of data question

From: Dennis Gearon <gearond(at)cvc(dot)net>
To: Jeremiah Jahn <jeremiah(at)cs(dot)earlham(dot)edu>
Cc: postgres list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: > 16TB worth of data question
Date: 2003-04-22 17:25:57
Message-ID: 3EA57B25.70701@cvc.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

One thing to think of, is how much is your REPUTATION worth? If everything you touch, turns to gold, keeps working, raises and better equipment are a LOT easier to get. OTOH................

Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 11:47, Philip Hallstrom wrote:
>
>>>On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 10:31, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>The proposed solution here is to have the raid controller mirror accross
>>>the street to a similar system. At what point do off line backups become
>>>pointless?
>>
>>I've always been told to ask the question -- what's your data worth to
>>you or how much $ will you lose if you lose your data? That should answer
>>the question on offline backups.
>>
>>-philip
>
>
> It's for the court system, so not much really. It basically a convience
> only.
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff MacDonald 2003-04-22 17:26:58 Re: Time handling in pgsql. (fwd)
Previous Message Jonathan Bartlett 2003-04-22 17:25:12 Re: > 16TB worth of data question