On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 04:36:23PM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> but, there are some commercial databases which keep their data directly
> on partitions ( this should be much better then any *fs including
> reiserfs) and the weird part is that that direct-partition instalation
> scheme seems to be a little bit slower that fs-based in benchmarks.
> And this means that I'm missing something here, what is it that I haven't
> thought about, anyone, any comments on this?
If I understand your question, you're saying that RDBMs do benchmark
faster using a native filesystems rather than rolling their own on
a partition, and you're wondering why ... I would have to hazard a
guess that the operating system disk cache and buffers are coming
into play when you're using a native filesystem, but there's no
caching when a "raw" partition is used.
--
"Eschew Obfuscation"
email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://incanus.net/~nnorman
PGP signature
