Обсуждение: Do we need more emphasis on backup?
I'm wondering if there's some basic failing in how we're presenting backing up the database on a regular basis. Maybe even our reputation for reliability hurts a bit here. I'm sure if PostgreSQL corrupted files all the time or had some other data reliability problem people would backup religiously. Now, the SQL documentation set has a tutorial that proceeds it that really is a great walk through on the features of PostgreSQL, and I was wondering if we needed an administrative walk through in a similar vein? It could include load generation scripts written in Perl or PHP or something like that to populate and exercise the database for demonstration purposes. It would include creating, populating, backing up, deleting, and restoring a database to simulate a catastrophic failure, etc... With things like tablespaces coming online, more and more administrative functions are in danger of being road blocks for the beginner if. I'd be willing to start it on the wiki site if anyone thinks it's a good idea. Any ideas welcome. I plan on following the basic administrative guide, just creating a tutorial analog for it.
"Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe@qwest.net> writes:
> I'm wondering if there's some basic failing in how we're presenting
> backing up the database on a regular basis.
> Maybe even our reputation for reliability hurts a bit here.
I have definitely noticed that a very large percentage of the data-loss
problems we've seen reported lately seem to trace to hardware problems.
Postgres is more reliable than consumer-grade PC hardware. (And is that
ever a change from when I started working with it ... but I digress.)
We do need to point out that you're only as reliable as your last
backup. I'm not sure exactly where to say this.
> Now, the SQL documentation set has a tutorial that proceeds it that
> really is a great walk through on the features of PostgreSQL, and I was
> wondering if we needed an administrative walk through in a similar vein?
> It could include load generation scripts written in Perl or PHP or
> something like that to populate and exercise the database for
> demonstration purposes.
Hm, that seems a bit far afield from the problem...
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > [snip] > > We do need to point out that you're only as reliable as your last > backup. I'm not sure exactly where to say this. [snip] > Hmph. Backups are for mitigation against a catastrophic failure destroying or corrupting main storage. And even then: Subtle errors can induce data corruption that may go un-noticed until it's too late. (I.e.: The last correct backups have been over-written, retired, so old they've become unreadable, so old the data's no longer useful, etc.) My position is that your data is only as reliable as your hardware, period. Use cheap (usually PC, sorry) hardware and, well... I wonder how many people are aware of the fact that the cheaper PCs don't even have parity memory anymore? Then there are the issues with IDE drives. (Don't recall those, exactly - don't use 'em.) One of the other mailing lists I'm on: The project developer, whenever somebody comes on list and says "Your code is blowing up, losing stuff, corrupting stuff," or whatever, first asks "What hardware are you running?" IIRC, he gives short shrift to complainants running inexpensive PC hardware. He won't spend any time on the complaint until they prove it's *not* their hardware. Jim
Jim Seymour wrote: > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > We do need to point out that you're only as reliable as your last > > backup. I'm not sure exactly where to say this. > [snip] > > > > Hmph. Backups are for mitigation against a catastrophic failure > destroying or corrupting main storage. And even then: Subtle errors > can induce data corruption that may go un-noticed until it's too late. > (I.e.: The last correct backups have been over-written, retired, so > old they've become unreadable, so old the data's no longer useful, > etc.) > > My position is that your data is only as reliable as your hardware, > period. Use cheap (usually PC, sorry) hardware and, well... I wonder > how many people are aware of the fact that the cheaper PCs don't even > have parity memory anymore? Then there are the issues with IDE > drives. (Don't recall those, exactly - don't use 'em.) There is a basic misconception that all PC hardware is created equal --- that hard drives, mother boards, and RAM are all the same because they are all PC-compatible. Compatible != Similar Quality. Not sure where we would document this. :-( Running BSD, I have always had to buy server-class hardware for my home machines, and I never regretted it nor had a problem. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
pgman wrote: > Jim Seymour wrote: > > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > We do need to point out that you're only as reliable as your last > > > backup. I'm not sure exactly where to say this. > > [snip] > > > > > > > Hmph. Backups are for mitigation against a catastrophic failure > > destroying or corrupting main storage. And even then: Subtle errors > > can induce data corruption that may go un-noticed until it's too late. > > (I.e.: The last correct backups have been over-written, retired, so > > old they've become unreadable, so old the data's no longer useful, > > etc.) > > > > My position is that your data is only as reliable as your hardware, > > period. Use cheap (usually PC, sorry) hardware and, well... I wonder > > how many people are aware of the fact that the cheaper PCs don't even > > have parity memory anymore? Then there are the issues with IDE > > drives. (Don't recall those, exactly - don't use 'em.) > > There is a basic misconception that all PC hardware is created equal --- > that hard drives, mother boards, and RAM are all the same because they > are all PC-compatible. Compatible != Similar Quality. > > Not sure where we would document this. :-( > > Running BSD, I have always had to buy server-class hardware for my home > machines, and I never regretted it nor had a problem. Should I add an FAQ discussing hardware selection and the importance of reliable hardware? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: > > pgman wrote: > > Jim Seymour wrote: [snip] > > > > > > My position is that your data is only as reliable as your hardware, > > > period. [snip] > > > > There is a basic misconception that all PC hardware is created equal --- > > that hard drives, mother boards, and RAM are all the same because they > > are all PC-compatible. Compatible != Similar Quality. [snip] > > Should I add an FAQ discussing hardware selection and the importance of > reliable hardware? Scary to think that people who don't know enough about running a proper server, and thus have to be *told* this, are admin'ing databases. Start with: Gotta have ECC, or at least parity-checking, RAM. Mention the (some kinds of?) IDE drives issue. Mention that hardware RAID systems must have battery-backed write cache. (I actually had a RAID vendor, whose products no longer had batter-backed write cache, tell me "Just use a UPS.") Jim
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:32:15AM -0400, Jim Seymour wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: > > Should I add an FAQ discussing hardware selection and the importance of > > reliable hardware? > > Scary to think that people who don't know enough about running a proper > server, and thus have to be *told* this, are admin'ing databases. Maybe it's scary for people in the US or the western/wealthier Europe. But people also live in other parts of the world (I could even mention that real people do live in places like Iraq and they even have computers there). For us rest-of-the-worlders, it's not always possible to get top of the line hardware. I am somewhat lucky because I live in a country where people can afford an UPS. Some people are not. Of course you can talk about the value of the data and how much good hardware can help you not lose that data -- but truth is, people need to make an economical analysis on the worthiness of such protection, and while some of them will be able to afford redundant battery backed SCSI RAID controllers, some others won't be able to buy an UPS. So I think it's a good idea to mention that better hardware can be helpful. But don't make that sound like if you don't have it, it's the end of the world or the admin is an uneducated moron. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "Hoy es el primer día del resto de mi vida"
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:32:15AM -0400, Jim Seymour wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: > > > > Should I add an FAQ discussing hardware selection and the importance of > > > reliable hardware? > > > > Scary to think that people who don't know enough about running a proper > > server, and thus have to be *told* this, are admin'ing databases. > > Maybe it's scary for people in the US or the western/wealthier Europe. > But people also live in other parts of the world (I could even mention > that real people do live in places like Iraq and they even have > computers there). > > For us rest-of-the-worlders, it's not always possible to get top of the > line hardware. I am somewhat lucky because I live in a country where > people can afford an UPS. Some people are not. > > Of course you can talk about the value of the data and how much good > hardware can help you not lose that data -- but truth is, people need to > make an economical analysis on the worthiness of such protection, and > while some of them will be able to afford redundant battery backed SCSI > RAID controllers, some others won't be able to buy an UPS. > > So I think it's a good idea to mention that better hardware can be > helpful. But don't make that sound like if you don't have it, it's the > end of the world or the admin is an uneducated moron. Good point. I will write up some text for the FAQ and post it. I will emphasize that there is great variation in the quality of PC-compatible hardware, and mention a few specific examples. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:32:15AM -0400, Jim Seymour wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: > > > > Should I add an FAQ discussing hardware selection and the importance of > > > reliable hardware? > > > > Scary to think that people who don't know enough about running a proper > > server, and thus have to be *told* this, are admin'ing databases. > [snip] > For us rest-of-the-worlders, it's not always possible to get top of the > line hardware. [snip] There's a difference between "not knowing your should" and "not being able to do it." I addressed cluelessness, not economic ability. > [snip] > > So I think it's a good idea to mention that better hardware can be > helpful. "Helpful?" Hmmm... You know, recently there was a "consumer alert" item during one of the major U.S. TV networks' news shows. It seems that all kinds of counterfeit products are making it into the stores here. Even after-market automotive brake pads made of nothing but compressed and painted/dyed vegetable matter. Needless to say, using brake bads made of proper brake pad material is "helpful." ;) Somebody's *ability* to employ proper hardware does not affect whether or not it's advisable to do so. This isn't a "rich" vs. "poor" issue. If you cannot do it, you cannot do it, and that's that. But that does not lessen the importance of knowing you should. > But don't make that sound like if you don't have it, it's the > end of the world or the admin is an uneducated moron. If your db destructs due to an undetected RAM problem (undetected because your computer has not even parity error detection) and the data in that db is "life or death" critical to your business, it might well be the end of the world as far as your business is concerned. Jim
Scary if the person has a DBA background. But there are lots of people, like myself, who find themselves doing this sort of work and do not have the formal training (small business, small db, but still an important part of the business IS). Now, I know my limits and I would not take on the task of administering a high-volume, mission-critical DB. Nonetheless, there are many tips, tricks, and gotcha's that I have yet to learn. I welcome an FAQ on this subject and genuinely appreciate the efforts of those who create it. It will make me a better "wanna-be"! -----Original Message----- From: Jim Seymour [mailto:jseymour@linxnet.com] Sent: July 6, 2004 6:32 AM To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Do we need more emphasis on backup? Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: > > pgman wrote: > > Jim Seymour wrote: [snip] > > > > > > My position is that your data is only as reliable as your hardware, > > > period. [snip] > > > > There is a basic misconception that all PC hardware is created equal --- > > that hard drives, mother boards, and RAM are all the same because they > > are all PC-compatible. Compatible != Similar Quality. [snip] > > Should I add an FAQ discussing hardware selection and the importance of > reliable hardware? Scary to think that people who don't know enough about running a proper server, and thus have to be *told* this, are admin'ing databases. Start with: Gotta have ECC, or at least parity-checking, RAM. Mention the (some kinds of?) IDE drives issue. Mention that hardware RAID systems must have battery-backed write cache. (I actually had a RAID vendor, whose products no longer had batter-backed write cache, tell me "Just use a UPS.") Jim
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 11:25:07 -0600, Anony Mous <a.mous@shaw.ca> wrote: > Scary if the person has a DBA background. But there are lots of people, > like myself, who find themselves doing this sort of work and do not have the > formal training (small business, small db, but still an important part of > the business IS). Now, I know my limits and I would not take on the task of > administering a high-volume, mission-critical DB. Nonetheless, there are > many tips, tricks, and gotcha's that I have yet to learn. > > I welcome an FAQ on this subject and genuinely appreciate the efforts of > those who create it. It will make me a better "wanna-be"! One thing this strikes me as is an opportunity to help shape the perception of DBAs and "real" databases versus "toy" databases. Various products have gotten a lot of people out there running databases with lots of mission criticle data in them, but they're trusting a lot of slip-shod software and not putting into place any proceedures to deal with backups and other things. For example, I recently dealt with a customer who was using another database, and had been running backups religiously for the past year. The problem? The backups were of a live database, and it turned out when they tried to restore, it was unable to get the tables back into a position where they were usable without dropping a huge amount of data from the tables, and then rebuilding indexes. A pain. All because they'd not taken the right steps. If the PostgreSQL community can help put together a "best practices" guide, that will help all database people, but it will also help show the PostgreSQL community as being more "serious." I'm more than happy to contribute practices, and things, as well as help edit other people's work, but I can't "lead" such an effort right now. Chris -- | Christopher Petrilli | petrilli@gmail.com
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Should I add an FAQ discussing hardware selection and the importance > of reliable hardware? I'm not a fan of having N "FAQs" for N topics. Just put it into the documentation.
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Should I add an FAQ discussing hardware selection and the importance > > of reliable hardware? > > I'm not a fan of having N "FAQs" for N topics. Just put it into the > documentation. No, I was thinking of adding an FAQ _item_ about it, not a new FAQ. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Christopher Petrilli <petrilli@gmail.com> wrote: > [snip] > > If the PostgreSQL community can help put together a "best practices" > guide, that will help all database people, but it will also help show > the PostgreSQL community as being more "serious." [snip] *That* would be most welcome! Jim
>>I'm not a fan of having N "FAQs" for N topics. Just put it into the >>documentation. > > > No, I was thinking of adding an FAQ _item_ about it, not a new FAQ. > I think it would actually make a nice subchapter of the official documentation. Although not strictly PostgreSQL specific but a "best practices" section under Administration and with a reference from Introduction would be good. Kaarel
New FAQ added:
<H4><A name="3.11">3.11</A>) What computer hardware should I use?</H4>
<P>Because PC hardware is mostly compatible, people tend to believe that
all PC hardware is of equal quality. It is not. ECC RAM, SCSI, and
quality motherboards are more reliable and have better performance than
less expensive hardware. PostgreSQL will run on almost any hardware,
but if you are building a server where reliability and performance are
concerns, it is wise to research your hardware options thoroughly. Our
email lists can be used to discuss hardware options and tradeoffs.</P>
Adjustments?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Seymour wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> > pgman wrote:
> > > Jim Seymour wrote:
> [snip]
> > > >
> > > > My position is that your data is only as reliable as your hardware,
> > > > period.
> [snip]
> > >
> > > There is a basic misconception that all PC hardware is created equal ---
> > > that hard drives, mother boards, and RAM are all the same because they
> > > are all PC-compatible. Compatible != Similar Quality.
> [snip]
> >
> > Should I add an FAQ discussing hardware selection and the importance of
> > reliable hardware?
>
> Scary to think that people who don't know enough about running a proper
> server, and thus have to be *told* this, are admin'ing databases.
>
> Start with: Gotta have ECC, or at least parity-checking, RAM.
>
> Mention the (some kinds of?) IDE drives issue.
>
> Mention that hardware RAID systems must have battery-backed write
> cache. (I actually had a RAID vendor, whose products no longer had
> batter-backed write cache, tell me "Just use a UPS.")
>
> Jim
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: > > > New FAQ added: > > <H4><A name="3.11">3.11</A>) What computer hardware should I use?</H4> > > <P>Because PC hardware is mostly compatible, people tend to believe that > all PC hardware is of equal quality. It is not. ECC RAM, SCSI, and > quality motherboards are more reliable and have better performance than > less expensive hardware. PostgreSQL will run on almost any hardware, > but if you are building a server where reliability and performance are > concerns, it is wise to research your hardware options thoroughly. Our > email lists can be used to discuss hardware options and tradeoffs.</P> > > Adjustments? Looks good to me. Succinct and non-judgemental. Well done! Oh, if you're accepting punctuation nits ;), in most cases, the comma should come after "but," not before it. So your sentence should read "PostgreSQL will run on almost any hardware but, if you are..." If you wanted to mention other issues to consider, you might include: > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Jim Seymour wrote: > > [snip] > > > > Mention that hardware RAID systems must have battery-backed write > > cache. (I actually had a RAID vendor, whose products no longer had > > batter-backed write cache, tell me "Just use a UPS.") Also desirable are a quality UPS, with monitoring on the server for graceful shutdown of the server on battery exhaustion, and redundant power supplies. Jim
OK, comma moved. I didn't add those other items because I didn't want the list to be anything near a complete list. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Seymour wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: > > > > > > New FAQ added: > > > > <H4><A name="3.11">3.11</A>) What computer hardware should I use?</H4> > > > > <P>Because PC hardware is mostly compatible, people tend to believe that > > all PC hardware is of equal quality. It is not. ECC RAM, SCSI, and > > quality motherboards are more reliable and have better performance than > > less expensive hardware. PostgreSQL will run on almost any hardware, > > but if you are building a server where reliability and performance are > > concerns, it is wise to research your hardware options thoroughly. Our > > email lists can be used to discuss hardware options and tradeoffs.</P> > > > > Adjustments? > > Looks good to me. Succinct and non-judgemental. Well done! > > Oh, if you're accepting punctuation nits ;), in most cases, the comma > should come after "but," not before it. So your sentence should read > "PostgreSQL will run on almost any hardware but, if you are..." > > If you wanted to mention other issues to consider, you might include: > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Jim Seymour wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > Mention that hardware RAID systems must have battery-backed write > > > cache. (I actually had a RAID vendor, whose products no longer had > > > batter-backed write cache, tell me "Just use a UPS.") > > Also desirable are a quality UPS, with monitoring on the server for > graceful shutdown of the server on battery exhaustion, and redundant > power supplies. > > Jim > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
jseymour@linxnet.com (Jim Seymour) writes: > Oh, if you're accepting punctuation nits ;), in most cases, the comma > should come after "but," not before it. So your sentence should read > "PostgreSQL will run on almost any hardware but, if you are..." Wrong. :) You are sentenced to go read Strunk and White again. -Doug
Doug McNaught wrote:
> jseymour@linxnet.com (Jim Seymour) writes:
>
> > Oh, if you're accepting punctuation nits ;), in most cases, the comma
> > should come after "but," not before it. So your sentence should read
> > "PostgreSQL will run on almost any hardware but, if you are..."
>
> Wrong. :)
>
> You are sentenced to go read Strunk and White again.
Text adjusted:
<P>Because PC hardware is mostly compatible, people tend to believe that
all PC hardware is of equal quality. It is not. ECC RAM, SCSI, and
quality motherboards are more reliable and have better performance than
less expensive hardware. PostgreSQL will run on almost any hardware,
but if you are building a server where you are concerned about reliability
and performance it is wise to research your hardware options thoroughly. Our
email lists can be used to discuss hardware options and tradeoffs.</P>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Sun, 2004-07-11 at 19:37, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Doug McNaught wrote: > > jseymour@linxnet.com (Jim Seymour) writes: > > > > > Oh, if you're accepting punctuation nits ;), in most cases, the comma > > > should come after "but," not before it. So your sentence should read > > > "PostgreSQL will run on almost any hardware but, if you are..." > > > > Wrong. :) > > > > You are sentenced to go read Strunk and White again. > > Text adjusted: > > <P>Because PC hardware is mostly compatible, people tend to believe that > all PC hardware is of equal quality. It is not. ECC RAM, SCSI, and > quality motherboards are more reliable and have better performance than > less expensive hardware. PostgreSQL will run on almost any hardware, > but if you are building a server where you are concerned about reliability > and performance it is wise to research your hardware options thoroughly. Our > email lists can be used to discuss hardware options and tradeoffs.</P> Further, a system should be burned in and have all the components thoroughly tested. Brand new computers can, and often do, have broken or misbehaving hardware. While relatively simple tasks like installing an operating system or browsing the web only use a small portion of a computer's resources, running a database relies on all of it working properly. Basically, it all boils down to to this, if you're not sure of your hardware, you shouldn't be building a database server with it, and you can't be sure of your hardware without testing it.
> ... PostgreSQL will run on almost any hardware,
> but if you are building a server where you are concerned about reliability
> and performance it is wise to research your hardware options thoroughly. ...
That's okay, of course. But I'll suggest the following as food for
thought
PostgreSQL will run on almost any hardware, but,
if you are building a server where you are concerned
about reliability and performance, it is wise to
research your hardware options thoroughly.
or
PostgreSQL will run on almost any hardware, but,
especially where reliability and performance are
required, it is wise to research your
hardware options thoroughly.
(where/when)
--
Joel <rees@ddcom.co.jp>
Doug McNaught <doug@mcnaught.org> wrote: > > jseymour@linxnet.com (Jim Seymour) writes: > > > Oh, if you're accepting punctuation nits ;), in most cases, the comma > > should come after "but," not before it. So your sentence should read > > "PostgreSQL will run on almost any hardware but, if you are..." > > Wrong. :) > > You are sentenced to go read Strunk and White again. I stand corrected. I always used to put the comma before "but," but changed after reading somewhere, or thinking I had, that was incorrect for certain sentence structures. Neither of my style guides supports what I said earlier, so I cannot imagine whence I got that idea. Jim
Joel wrote:
> > ... PostgreSQL will run on almost any hardware,
> > but if you are building a server where you are concerned about reliability
> > and performance it is wise to research your hardware options thoroughly. ...
>
> That's okay, of course. But I'll suggest the following as food for
> thought
>
> PostgreSQL will run on almost any hardware, but,
> if you are building a server where you are concerned
> about reliability and performance, it is wise to
> research your hardware options thoroughly.
>
> or
>
> PostgreSQL will run on almost any hardware, but,
> especially where reliability and performance are
> required, it is wise to research your
> hardware options thoroughly.
New text:
<P>Because PC hardware is mostly compatible, people tend to believe that
all PC hardware is of equal quality. It is not. ECC RAM, SCSI, and
quality motherboards are more reliable and have better performance than
less expensive hardware. PostgreSQL will run on almost any hardware,
but if reliability and performance are important it is wise to
research your hardware options thoroughly. Our email lists can be used
to discuss hardware options and tradeoffs.</P>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
> New text: > > <P>Because PC hardware is mostly compatible, people tend to believe that > all PC hardware is of equal quality. It is not. ECC RAM, SCSI, and > quality motherboards are more reliable and have better performance than > less expensive hardware. PostgreSQL will run on almost any hardware, > but if reliability and performance are important it is wise to > research your hardware options thoroughly. Our email lists can be used > to discuss hardware options and tradeoffs.</P> I like that, too. (And now, after a break with real-world grammars, back to the cold, cruel world of mechanical parsers. ;) -- Joel <rees@ddcom.co.jp>
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 08:19:22PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> New FAQ added:
I would suggest the following:
<H4><A name="3.11">3.11</A>) What computer hardware should I use?</H4>
<P>PostgreSQL will run on almost any hardware, but if you are building
a server where reliability and performance are concerns, it is wise to
research your hardware options thoroughly. ECC RAM, SCSI, and quality
motherboards have proven to be more reliable and to offer better
performance than less expensive hardware. Where cost of hardware is
your primary concern, proven and frequent backups may provide
reassurance that valued information can be retreived after component
or system failure. With inexpensive hardware there is greater risk of
introducing subtle errors which degrade the credibility of your data.
Our email lists can be used to discuss hardware options and tradeoffs.
</P>
---------------------------------------//--------------------------------
IMHO the guy with cheapo hardware is the one with most need of advice. It
may be prudent to put together some figures to give some notion of a cost
effective backup for him.
Following on from this, I hear that serial ATA drives are likely to
replace IDE drives and will offer performance similar to SCSI.
But, I am still a novice in database matters, just my 2d.
HTH
Richard A Lough