> > Personally, I believe it would be worth it - but only to a few. And
> > these most of these few are likely using Oracle. So, no gain unless
> > you can convince them to switch back... :-)
>
> We do know that the benefit for commercial databases that use raw and
> file system storage is that raw storage is only a few percentage
> points faster.
Imho it is really not comparable because they all use direct or async IO
that bypasses the OS buffercache even when using filesystem files for
storage.
A substantial speed difference is allocation of space for restore
(no format of fs and no file allocation needed).
I am not saying this to advocate moving in that direction however.
I do however think that there is substantial headroom in reducing the
number
of IO calls and reducing on disk storage requirements.
Especially in concurrent load scenarios.
Andreas
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
