Not that my DB is that big.. but if it was and it contained any sort of financial data (something that you might want to dispute 2 years down the road) then I would have multiple replicated systems (which I do have .. but they are MSSQL) and I would also be backing the data up to an offsite storage.. either via tape or another box with enough storage space. Your best bet is to have geographical redundancy.
Travis -----Original Message----- From: Lincoln Yeoh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 10:20 AM To: Lamar Owen Cc: PgSQL General ML Subject: Re: need for in-place upgrades (was Re: [GENERAL] State of >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? 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. Head hurts just to think about it, Link. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
