> Getting partitioning/read-only right will allow 70+TB of that to be on
> tape or similar, which with compression can be reduced to maybe 20TB?
I
> don't want to promise any particular compression ratio, but it will
make
> a substantial difference, as I'm sure you realise.
Wouldn't one very substantial requirement of such storage be to
have it independent of db version, or even db product? Keeping
old hardware and software around can be quite expensive.
So, wouldn't a virtual table interface be a better match for such a
problem ? Such a virtual table should be allowed to be part of a
partitioning
scheme, have native or virtual indexes, ...
Andreas
