Re: > 16TB worth of data question

> > And you expect them to be successful running a database that acquires
> > 2TB+ of data per year? I think you need to recalibrate your
> > expectations. Consumer-grade junk PCs do not have the reliability
> > to make such a project even worth starting. Run the database on decent
> > made-to-be-a-server hardware, or you'll regret it.
> 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...?

Actually, true server-grade machines usually have _less_ processing power
than PCs. Why? Because their attention is paid to reliability, not
speed. Server class (ie. name-brand, ECC) memory is a must.
Previous-generation processors are a must, and someone who knows something
about server hardware putting it together is a must. If you don't have
these things, you are bound for server lockups, memory corruption, and all
sorts of other evils.

Microsoft gets a lot of blame for the failures of the PC, but in reality,
a lot of them are hardware-related.

Jon

>
>
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> --
> Jeremiah Jahn <jeremiah(at)cs(dot)earlham(dot)edu>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>