X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93C2BD1B1EC; Mon, 5 Jul 2004 16:09:22 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 74917-02; Mon, 5 Jul 2004 19:09:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (candle.pha.pa.us [207.106.42.251]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB78DD1B1DA; Mon, 5 Jul 2004 16:09:15 -0300 (ADT) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i65J9Hu04344; Mon, 5 Jul 2004 15:09:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200407051909.i65J9Hu04344@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Do we need more emphasis on backup? In-Reply-To: To: PostgreSQL-general , PostgreSQL-documentation Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 15:09:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL108 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200407/8 X-Sequence-Number: 2416 pgman wrote: > Jim Seymour wrote: > > Tom Lane 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