El Dom 14 Sep 2003 12:20, Lincoln Yeoh escribió:
> >At 07:16 PM 9/13/2003 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
> >'migration' server. And I really don't want to think about dump/restore
> >of 100TB (if PostgreSQL actually stores the image files, which it might).
>
> Hmm. Just curious, do people generally backup 100TB of data, or once most
> reach this point they have to hope that it's just hardware failures they'll
> deal with and not software/other issues?
Normally you would have a RAID with mirroring and CRC, so that if one of the
disks in the array of disks falls, the system keeps working. You can even
have hot-pluggable disks, so you can change the disk that is broken without
rebooting.
You can also have a hot backup using eRServ (Replicate your DB server on a
backup server, just in case).
> 100TB sounds like a lot of backup media and time... Not to mention ensuring
> that the backups will work with available and functioning backup hardware.
I don't know, but there may be backup systems for that amount of space. We
have just got some 200Gb tape devices, and they are about 2 years old. With a
5 tape robot, you have 1TB of backup.
--
Porqué usar una base de datos relacional cualquiera,
si podés usar PostgreSQL?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telematica
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
