On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, 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? Ah, see, the post that I was responding to dealt with 300GB of data, which, a disk array for, is relatively cheap ... :) But even with 1TB of data, do you note have a redundant system? If you can't afford 3 hours to dump/reload, can you actually afford any better the cost of the server itself going poof? ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
