> FWIW, FreeBSD's UFS filesystem doesn't suffer from the 2G limit. It's
> limit is something like 4TB iirc.
If the data itself is large (i.e. - large images not just large # of
images), I'd go with an XFS filesystem. It has a 5 petabyte limit, and
for large sequential reads, it has almost full-disk speed.
Jon
>
> I'll also second the opinion that if you're really going to put that
> much data in your database, x86 hardware might not be a good idea.
> However, I'd recommend RS/6000 over Sun if you can afford it; for
> Oracle, the standard is that you only need 1/2 the CPUs in RS/6000 as
> you would in a Sun, because RS/6000 puts heavy emphasis on memory
> bandwidth.
>
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 01:23:55PM -0500, Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
> > I have a system that will store about 2TB+ of images per year in a PG
> > database. Linux unfortunatly has the 16TB limit for 32bit systems. Not
> > really sure what should be done here. Would life better to not store the
> > images as BLOBS, and instead come up with some complicated way to only
> > store the location in the database, or is there someway to have postgres
> > handle this somehow? What are other people out there doing about this
> > sort of thing?
> >
> > thanx,
> > -jj-
> >
> > --
> > Jeremiah Jahn <jeremiah@cs.earlham.edu>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
> >
>
> --
> Jim C. Nasby (aka Decibel!) jim@nasby.net
> Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America
> Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
>
> Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
> Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
> FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
>