Re: need for in-place upgrades (was Re: State of
От | Ron Johnson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: need for in-place upgrades (was Re: State of |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1063667047.11739.1248.camel@haggis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: need for in-place upgrades (was Re: State of (Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 14:40, Lamar Owen wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > It is alot but is is not a lot for something like an Insurance company > > or a bank. Also 100TB is probably non-compressed although 30TB is still > > large. > > Our requirements are such that this figure is our best guess after > compression. The amount of data prior to compression is much larger, > and consists of highly compressible astronomical observations in FITS > format. Wow, it just occurred to me: if you partition the data correctly, you won't need to back it *all* up on a daily/weekly/monthly basis. Once you back up a chunk of compressed images ("Orion, between 2001- 01-01 and 2001-01-31") a few times, no more need to back that data up. Thus, you don't need monster archival h/w like some of us do. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net Jefferson, LA USA 484,246 sq mi are needed for 6 billion people to live, 4 persons per lot, in lots that are 60'x150'. That is ~ California, Texas and Missouri. Alternatively, France, Spain and The United Kingdom.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: