Re: Inherited an 18TB DB & need to backup

Also when you get in the multi TB data storage the bill gets a little
harder to digest in S3.

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:49 Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <adsmail(at)wars-nicht(dot)de>
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 7:52 PM Ravi Krishna <srkrishna1(at)comcast(dot)net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Why should the backup land in S3, and not local somewhere?
>> Any good reason why one should pay for the additional storage and
>> transfer costs?
>>
>> Good question. The key point in my statement was "db of this size".
>>
>> The problem with local backup is that space is not infinite. If your
>> business requires you to
>> store backups for say 7 years, storing it locally will be a problem. In
>> one large financial
>> company I use to work, full backup was used to store old data.
>> (except last 30 days where WAL logs were used for a real PIT). We use to
>> store full backups
>> for about 60 days and then send older backup to an off site storage.
>> Nothing is free.
>>
>> I remember a case where we were requested by business to restore a db of
>> a given date two yrs
>> prior as they had to look at old data. It took us close to 96 hrs to give
>> the users the required database.
>>
>> S3 storage is ridiculously cheap. Off site storage companies like Iron
>> Mountain should find their client base
>> ditching them big time.
>>
>
> If your database is running somewhere in the cloud, then yes, that might
> make
> sense. If your database runs in your own data center, then usually you
> also have
> disk space available there. Plus a transfer out of your data center will
> take time.
>
> There is no "per se" recommendation to move data to S3. And there might be
> additional requirements like data protection laws, encryption requirements
> ect.
>
> --
> Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
> German PostgreSQL User Group
> European PostgreSQL User Group - Board of Directors
> Volunteer Regional Contact, Germany - PostgreSQL Project
>
--
T: @Thaumion
IG: Thaumion
Scottix(at)Gmail(dot)com