Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:11:30 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com> Cc: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@flamingo.McKusick.COM>, Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, committers@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The eventual fate of BLOCK devices. Message-ID: <199910122211.QAA99359@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:57:49 CDT." <Pine.NEB.3.96.991012165540.65198B-100000@shell-1.enteract.com> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96.991012165540.65198B-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.NEB.3.96.991012165540.65198B-100000@shell-1.enteract.com> David Scheidt writes: : It doesn't run on FreeBSD, but Sybase uses block devices for its dedicated : disk devices. There may be other RDBMSes that do this. EVERY RDBMS that I've ever seen or had to make work with my drivers has been on the raw partition. This is because the database writers DO NOT LIKE OR TRUST the buffer cache due to its non-deterministic nature of disk writing. Are you sure that Sybase uses BLOCK devices and not CHAR devices? Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199910122211.QAA99359>