Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6813F632B4B for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:40:53 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 93242-04 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 21:40:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from is.rice.edu (is.rice.edu [128.42.42.24]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F769632659 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:40:42 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by is.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46BF24181C; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:43:37 -0600 (CST) Received: from is.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (it.is.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17830-05; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:43:31 -0600 (CST) Received: by is.rice.edu (Postfix, from userid 18612) id 0A8D441819; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:43:30 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:43:30 -0600 From: Kenneth Marshall To: "Joshua D. Drake" Cc: Scott Marlowe , Jan-Ivar Mellingen , Tom Lane , pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: linux standard layout Message-ID: <20100309214330.GH19562@it.is.rice.edu> References: <4B95E162.7060806@djs-consulting.com> <3769.1268115316@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4B96AD1B.7070601@alreg.no> <1268168772.31596.147.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com> <1268170100.31596.173.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1268170100.31596.173.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-2.2.1 at is.rice.edu X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.473 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=AWL=0.126, BAYES_00=-2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201003/72 X-Sequence-Number: 33871 On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 01:28:20PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:25 -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:35 -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > > > > >> > In a nutshell, I am heartly recommending virtualization. > > >> > > >> In a nutshell, you are relying on luck that both heavy iron machines > > >> can't lose power at the same time. Sure, it's a low possibility, but > > >> it's still a real one. > > >> > > > > > > Not luck. Percentage of risk. > > > > They're both ways of saying you're rolling the dice. And in every > > situation we're rolling the dice, it's just a question of how many and > > Well my point was all about risk versus reward. For many, a 3% risk is > more than appropriate. That isn't luck, it is a calculation of risk. > True, but in many cases the analysis of risk/reward is flawed by not including the true cost of a protracted outage. Some of the second order effects can be nasty if not included originally. I would also recommend that the analysis and implementation be signed-off at the highest levels -- that is where the head-hunting will start. Cheers, Ken