Re: native Oracle-port on Linux -- what would it take?

In article <679vcl$5j1_at_pell.pell.portland.or.us>, david parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s> wrote:
>In article <01bd0b13$3da5c480$2e5c0c26_at_sfinance3>,
>S V <sv1_at_mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Linux is missing many features for any OS to be worth considering
>>as a viable database platform.
>>1. Linux has no logical volumes layer.
>
> You don't need that for a database.
>
>>2. Linux has no transaction-oriented filesystem.
>
> You don't care about that for a database.

Yeah, last I heard the db does transactions, not the fs!

>>3. Linux has no support for raw devices - hence NO even remote possibility
>> to run Oracle Parallel Server.
>
> The only way this becomes an issue is if the system buffering gets in
> the way of the database buffering, since any serious high-reliability
> database would want to talk directly to the disk.

In official Oracle documentation it says that using raw partitions can in some circumstances _reduce_ performance, because the OS does a better job of buffering. It is a lot less flexible anyway.

For high-reliablity, can't you tell ext2fs to do synchronous writes now?

>> [other crap deleted]

What's the bet that someone on the Oracle development team _has_ actually ported Oracle to Linux, even if it just for his/her own amusement? (people from Oracle, this is your cue to make an anonymous posting :-)

PS. David, it's polite to point out that you've changed follow-ups. PPS. Note follow-up to:

--
	-Matt