From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Nov 6 3:12:20 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mail-relay.eunet.no (mail-relay.eunet.no [193.71.71.242]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F46F37B479 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 03:12:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from login-1.eunet.no (login-1.eunet.no [193.75.110.2]) by mail-relay.eunet.no (8.9.3/8.9.3/GN) with ESMTP id MAA84609; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:12:14 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mbendiks@eunet.no) Received: from localhost (mbendiks@localhost) by login-1.eunet.no (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA36395; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:12:14 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mbendiks@eunet.no) X-Authentication-Warning: login-1.eunet.no: mbendiks owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:12:14 +0100 (CET) From: Marius Bendiksen To: Matt Dillon Cc: Alfred Perlstein , Randell Jesup , arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Like to commit my diskprep In-Reply-To: <200011030339.eA33d9D43976@earth.backplane.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > If you have a machine with a gig of ram, losing 4MB is REALLY not a big > deal. Er. Allow me to point out that you need to allow the database software to wire that ram for it to even be of any value, because what I'm concerned with here is the latency. Bandwidth can always be increased; getting down the latency and the interruptions in continous (non-random) access is a concern of mine, and indirection does not help this. Besides, managing extants is actually easier, unless you want to use a B+-tree approach, like HPFS does. Marius To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message