Messages in this thread | | | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: O_DIRECT question | Date | Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:53:43 -0500 |
| |
Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> Well, I too currently work with Oracle. > Apparently people who wrote damn thing have very, eh, Oracle-centric > world-view. "We want direct writes to the disk. Period." Why? Does it > makes sense? Are there better ways? - nothing. They think they know better. > I fear you are taking the Windows approach, that the computer is there to serve the o/s and applications have to do things the way the o/s wants. As opposed to the UNIX way, where you can either be clever or stupid, the o/s is there to allow you to use the hardware, not be your mother.
Currently applications have the option of letting the o/s make decisions via open/read/write, or let the o/s make decisions and tell the application via aio, or using O_DIRECT and having full control over the process. And that's exactly as it should be. It's not up to the o/s to be mother.
> (And let's not even start on why oracle ignores SIGTERM. Apparently Unix > rules aren't for them. They're too big to play by rules.)
Any process can ignore SIGTERM, or do a significant amount of cleanup before exit()ing. Complex operations need to be completed or unwound. Why select Oracle? Other applications may also do that, with more or less valid reasons.
-- Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |