[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: fadvise syscall?
At 18:35 17/03/02, Ken Hirsch wrote:
>Anton Altaparmakov writes
> > Posix or not I still don't see why one would want that. You know what you
> > are going to be using a file for at open time and you are not going to be
> > changing your mind later. If you can show me a single _real_world_ example
> > where one would genuinely want to change from one access pattern to
> > without closing/reopening a particular file I would agree that fadvise is
> > good idea but otherwise I think open(2) is the superior approach.
> >
>Sure, a database manager can change the access pattern on every query. If
>there's an index and not too many records are expected to match, it will use
>a random pattern, otherwise it will use sequential access.

Last time I heard serious databases use their own memmory
management/caching in combination with O_DIRECT, i.e. they bypass the
kernel's buffering system completely. Hence I would deem them irrelevant to
the problem at hand...

If a database were not to use O_DIRECT I would think it would be using mmap
so it would have madvise already... but I am not a database expert so take
this with a pinch of salt...

Best regards,


"I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW:
ICQ: 8561279 / WWW:

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.117 / U:9.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site