From owner-freebsd-current Thu Sep 14 22:46:45 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 40DAA37B422; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 22:46:41 -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 13ZoT8-0000PR-00; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:55:27 -0600 Message-ID: <39C1B9CE.F3FDF296@softweyr.com> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:55:26 -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: Mike Smith Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: No block devices (was: VMWare on -current, how fast should I expect it to be?) References: <200009150524.WAA00506@mass.osd.bsdi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Mike Smith wrote: > > > > > Doesn't Oracle run MUCH better when given raw block disk devices to store > > data on? > > Oracle wants to cache it's own data, it doesn't want the buffer cache > behind it. Yes, now it's all coming back. It's amazing how much you can forget in the space of a decade. > > Could this have lead to some of the poor performance Mike Smith > > was seeing when testing this summer? > > No, we were layering over the filesystem, however filesystem load was > insignificant. The Oracle performance issues are well known, and this > isn't one of them. Thank you for clearing that up. -- "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