On Monday 16 July 2001 14:48, alex avriette wrote:
> Our hardware is a cluster of 3 ultra 10's, a pair of 700-dvd jukeboxes
> (with burners), a 2.5tb SAN, 10 DAT tape readers, a pair of dvd-roms, and 2
> 200gb disk packs (one for each of our tape-reading suns -- the other one
> manages the DVD jukes). We also run capture on four dell poweredge servers
> running NT. We run the DjVu software on an additional 3 poweredge servers.
> That stuff is NT. The SAN is run on a cluster of 4 sun e 3500's.
> I am pumping about 200gb a week through the pg database, and our estimated
> database size is something like 4tb by the end of the year.
> In some ways, I am amazed that postgres has stood up to the challenge. In
> others, however, I am not in the least surprised. Its a fantastic piece of
> software that requires almost no intervention on my part. I talked to one
> of our oracle dba's about it. He actually (im not kidding here) did not
> believe it could be a database if it did not require maintenance.
Can anyone say 'Woof!'?
This is awesome. Thank you, Alex, for sharing this testimonial -- your
database sounds like a serious test of 'scalability' no matter which way you
slice it.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
