From owner-freebsd-current Thu Sep 14 22:10:18 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from homer.softweyr.com (bsdconspiracy.net [208.187.122.220]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8637F37B43C; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 22:10:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=softweyr.com ident=Fools trust ident!) by homer.softweyr.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 13Znt5-0000OC-00; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:18:11 -0600 Message-ID: <39C1B113.95D2B88B@softweyr.com> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:18:11 -0600 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 4.1-STABLE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Lehey Cc: Thomas David Rivers , julian@elischer.org, nik@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: No block devices (was: VMWare on -current, how fast should I expect it to be?) References: <39BE38FC.41C67EA6@elischer.org> <200009121413.KAA51124@lakes.dignus.com> <20000913110306.D47700@wantadilla.lemis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Greg Lehey wrote: > > FWIW, I was never happy with the removal of block devices either. I > was shouted down with "can you point to any one use they are?", to > which I replied "just because I don't know of one doesn't mean there > isn't one, or that there will never be one in the future". This is an > example where they could presumably be useful. Doesn't Oracle run MUCH better when given raw block disk devices to store data on? Could this have lead to some of the poor performance Mike Smith was seeing when testing this summer? -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message