lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: O_DIRECT question
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-01-26 16:59    [W:0.106 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site