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?