Re: > 16TB worth of data question

> > 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?

This does not help if someone rm -R's the whole thing.

If you don't think that's possible, it happened to Travelocity one day.
The DBA thought that a tablespace was no longer in use and rm'd it. Ooops.
Entire database down and the tablespace had to be restored from backup.

>
> >
> > > > 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
> >
> > Well there's off-the-shelf x86 desktop PC hardware, and there's
> > off-the-shelf x86 server hardware.
> >
> > In my experience for name brands it's about 1/7 DOA for the former, and 0
> > for the latter. There's a big diff in dependability. The latter tend to
> > keep running for many years, typically being retired for no fault of their own.
> >
> > Then there are users who stick no name memory into their servers or "servers".
> >
> > Regards,
> > Link.
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
> >
> > http://archives.postgresql.org
> --
> Jeremiah Jahn <jeremiah(at)cs(dot)earlham(dot)edu>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>