Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:14:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com>, Kirk McKusick <mckusick@flamingo.McKusick.COM>, Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, committers@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The eventual fate of BLOCK devices. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910132113370.46069-100000@picnic.mat.net> In-Reply-To: <199910122211.QAA99359@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Warner Losh wrote: > In message <Pine.NEB.3.96.991012165540.65198B-100000@shell-1.enteract.com> David Scheidt writes: > : It doesn't run on FreeBSD, but Sybase uses block devices for its dedicated > : disk devices. There may be other RDBMSes that do this. > > EVERY RDBMS that I've ever seen or had to make work with my drivers > has been on the raw partition. This is because the database writers > DO NOT LIKE OR TRUST the buffer cache due to its non-deterministic > nature of disk writing. Are you sure that Sybase uses BLOCK devices > and not CHAR devices? Gawd, now that I think of it, about my Informix post, you're right, they use a raw partition, and their own buffering. > > Warner > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include C programming, Electronics, 213 Lakeside Dr. Apt. T-1 | communications, and signal processing. Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run picnic.mat.net: FreeBSD-current(i386) and (301) 220-2114 | jaunt.mat.net : FreeBSD-current(Alpha) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9910132113370.46069-100000>