4 ms·
6.2TB is single machine scale The company here is doing petabytes of data and millions of ops per second. That’s scale. We should be clear about what “at scal
by jjirsa 8y ago
6.2TB is single machine scale
The company here is doing petabytes of data and millions of ops per second. That’s scale.
We should be clear about what “at scale” means, and 6.2TB is not.
- pilif 8y agoNo matter the scale. Table corruption is never acceptable. If table corruption is acceptable, you might as well just serve data from /dev/urandom and store user data to /dev/null.
- astine 8y agoTable corruption may not be 'acceptable,' but that doesn't matter. Even if your software is perfect and has no bugs, it cannot account for issues at the system and hardware level. Backups and redundant systems exist for a reason. I've have data corruption in a PG database before. I don't remember the cause--I think it was the filesystem rather than Postgres that was at fault--but it still happened and I had to deal with it.
- manigandham 8y agoObviously the situation being discussed here is corruption specifically because of the database software. If a comet destroys the entire datacenter and the data is lost, nobody is going to blame Postgres for it.