Re: need for in-place upgrades (was Re: State of Beta 2)

From: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>
Cc: PgSQL General ML <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: need for in-place upgrades (was Re: State of Beta 2)
Date: 2003-09-13 16:21:31
Message-ID: 20030913131448.W82880@ganymede.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

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?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-09-13 16:33:11 Re: State of Beta 2
Previous Message Ron Johnson 2003-09-13 15:52:45 Re: need for in-place upgrades (was Re: State of Beta 2)