AFAIK reiserfs is about keeping files (blocks) in b-trees,
and DBMS keep their data in a bunch of files, which are accessed directly
(non-sequential access).
So I figured that reiserfs would be great for keeping DBMS's data on it.
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?
regards, Eyck
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
