Re: FileSystem to raw device. Performance will Improve?

From: Bill Canning <bill.canning_at_sandiegoca.attgis.com>
Date: 1995/10/20
Message-ID: <DGrBuw.6qD_at_lcpd2.SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.COM>#1/1

==========Bill Canning 10/10/95=================================

The parallel server option requires raw partitions because UNIX file systems are not sharable between MPP nodes while raw shared SCSI is.

==========Larry Fishman, 10/14/95========== an interesting question to add on top of this would be: "Why does the Oracle 7.1.6 parallel server option require raw partitions?" my assumption is that this is also true in 7.2.

Joel Garry (joelga_at_rossinc.com) wrote:
: In article <00001a1b+0000356d_at_msn.com> toronix_at_msn.com (Robert Rowntree)
 writes:
: >I would like to hear about experiences on possible performance
: >improvements of setting up the database as a raw device vs.
: >filesystem. Whats the advantages and disadvantages. Are most projects
: >going filesystem(block devices) or raw devices.
 

: While I've been watching this newsgroup, I've seen claims of performance
: increases of -20% to +300%. Personally, I think a modest performance
: increase is to be expected, but that is overcome by the possibility that
: someone will come along and overwrite your data with a filesystem.
 

: There is an interesting perspective on hot backups in the November, '95
: Unix Review magazine.
 

: --
: Joel Garry joelga_at_rossinc.com Compuserve
 70661,1534
: These are my opinions, not necessarily those of Ross Systems, Inc. <> <>
: %DCL-W-SOFTONEDGEDONTPUSH, Software On Edge - Don't Push. \ V /
: panic: ifree: freeing free inodes... O

-- 
larryf_at_teleport.com   http://www.teleport.com/~larryf/index.html

Received on Fri Oct 20 1995 - 00:00:00 CET