Re: Database writing architecture

From: Pablo Sanchez <pablo_at_mew.corp.sgi.com>
Date: 1996/04/12
Message-ID: <4km9qb$svj_at_murrow.corp.sgi.com>#1/1

In article <316D6BD4.41C67EA6_at_exu.ericsson.se>, Gerald Ward <exuward_at_exu.ericsson.se> writes:
> I'm very curious about comparing the writing architecture
> of Oracle versus Sybase. This question stems from prior
> discussions on the difference between databases installed
> on raw partions and databases installed on filesystems
> (UNIX).
>
> Sybase may have problems with database consistency
> if filesystem databases are used because the OS buffers
> the writes. Apparantly, Oracle doesn't have this problem
> or it isn't as big of an issue. Is this indeed true?

We had a guy named Francisco Casas who used to post here and he made the claim that *any* DBMS must use raw partitions if you want integrity.

Also, I believe that cooked file system will win out on small operations due to the write buffering but I thought reading somewhere (unconfirmed) that with cooked, eventually you'll get slowed due to bdflush coming along and having to write out dirty buffers from main to disk...

Pablo Sanchez              | Ph # (415) 933.3812        Fax # (415) 933.2821
pablo_at_sgi.com              | Pg # (800) 930.5635  -or-  pablo_p_at_corp.sgi.com
===============================================================================

I am accountable for my actions. http://reality.sgi.com/pablo [ /Sybase_FAQ ] Received on Fri Apr 12 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST