Re: To RAW partition or not

In article <2dg1gt$1a9_at_mailhost.interaccess.com>, wangf_at_interaccess.com (Francis Wang) writes:
>
> I'm in the process of building a multi-giga byte database. Some of
> the tablespaces will be as large as 6 giga bytes. My initial instinct
> is to use raw partition for various performance reasons. I also have
> this basic distrust about Unix file systems when it comes to managing
> large critical data. However, prelimanary benchmark indicated that
> the system is primarily CPU bound (we did the benchmark on a
> single CPU RS6000 machine using Unix file system). Given this fact
> the system support group have argued heavily against using raw
> partition (because of maintanence head-ache). Does anyone have any
> insigt into this? Is the Unix filesystem more robust these days?
> Thanks in advance for any contribution.
>

There was a posting many moons ago that indicated that each implementation of UNIX is different and going to RAW access may actually be slower on some implementations. They suggested that you test it out first unless you can find somebody who has done the test already.

Good luck.

-- 
Bruce...        pihlab_at_cbr.hhcs.gov.au

"If you swallow a live frog first thing in the morning ...
 Nothing worse will happen to either of you for the rest of the day."

*******************************************************************
* Bruce Pihlamae  --  Database Administration                     *
* Commonwealth Department of                                      * 
*          Health, Housing, Local Government & Community Services *
* Canberra, Australia                             (W) 06-289-7056 *
*******************************************************************
* These are my own thoughts and opinions, few that I have.        *
*******************************************************************