Re: Data Storage Issue (Basic Issue)

Lew wrote:
> Eric Sosman wrote:
>> [...]
>>     4) The fact (if we assume its existence) that some database
>>        performed better without a file system than with one does
>>        not prove that the file system performs poorly.  It might
>>        well be that the database in question does things dumbly
>>        and forces the file system to do a lot of needless work.
> 
> In this case, no.  If you read up on Oracle's direct-disk management it 
> is not dumb, nor is its file-system interaction.  None of the big 
> players are stupid with file-system access, be they Oracle, DB2, 
> Postgres or whomever.  [...]

     I see you've not encountered Lotus "databases" ...

>>     I'd suggest that you not dismiss Lew's anecdote, but that
>> you examine its actual information content before forming firm
>> opinions about file systems vs. raw devices.
> 
> Which is exactly why I presented it as an anecdote.  Still, seeing it 
> work like that even in one case is very indicative, wouldn't you agree?

     No.  "Suggestive," perhaps, or even "cautionary."  But for
my own part I wouldn't confer "very indicative" on a lab result
that cannot be reproduced by an independent experimenter.  A
citation of a full re****t or published paper or something of that
nature might change my mind, but at the moment ... no.

-- 
Eric Sosman
esosman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]