On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:25 -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. > how unlikely a particular outcome it. It's why we all have off-site > backups, and so on. Yes. Joshua D. Drake > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir. -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
