Messages in this thread |  | | From | Peter Desnoyers <> | Subject | Re: Sybase for Linux? (OOPS!) | Date | Tue, 17 Dec 1996 16:08:03 -0500 (EST) |
| |
> > > I dunno -- if sybase can't get decent performance without raw partitions, > why would anybody want it?
Actually there would be two reasons - performance, and reliability. In particular, a database may need to be certain that a particular piece of data has been written to secondary store.
Every time this topic comes up I find myself wondering why people don't see the obvious - it doesn't matter whether you need raw partitions on Linux to achieve these goals. If they were necessary on any of the earlier platforms on which the product was developed, then the code will have been written to use them. If porting to buffered partitions is not trivial, then it doesn't matter if they're good enough to do the job - the work won't get done unless there's a compelling business case for supporting the platform.
............................................................................... Peter Desnoyers : Midnight Networks Inc. 200 Fifth Avenue Waltham MA 02154 pjd@midnight.com : Ph. 617/890-1001 Fax -0028 The Best in Network Software
|  |