Re: Database design.

[Andrew <andrewwilly () gmail com>]

Drsolly wrote:
> I can't imagine why you'd need a lot of hardware. If 60 million people 
> each need 20kb of data on average, that's 1.2 terabytes, which is four 300 
> gb hard drives. Of course, you'd want some mirroring and multiple 
> locations, but even so. I could do the pilot project on one server; maybe 
>   
I'm not sure how you arrived at 20 kb.  I had to reread your message to 
ensure you were serious.

Several participants mentioned x-rays or other radiology studies when 
disputing this ridiculous estimate, and for good reason.  Of course, I 
only know of practice in the United States, but it is likely similar 
elsewhere.

Most studies are kept for seven years. Mammography studies are kept for 
nine years. Studies on children are kept at least until they turn 18.  
They range in size from tens of megs to a gigabyte. Either England's 
central health care database scope doesn't include storing the digital 
radiology for 60 million people, or they're going to need that money.

Well, perhaps not 40 billion.  But exponentially more than the, "is this 
guy for real?" two hundred thousand you mentioned.

Andrew


_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.