<flame bait>So you consider these two to be serious databases?</flame bait>
>It's true that commercial databases mostly do their own scheduling and
>caching, and if they are the only thing running on your system and you tune
>them right, that works. But it's not necessarily a good thing. If there
>are other processes on your system, there would be a benefit if the DBMS
>could inform the operating system of its intentions.
>A posix_fadvise() call would be a start, but you could potentially go beyond
Ok, so basically we want both fadvise() and open(2) semantics, with the
open(2) being a superset of the fadvise() capabilities (some things no
longer make sense to be specified once the file is open). They can of
course both be calling the same common helpers inside the kernel...
fadvise() would probably only be used by databases while open(2) would be
used by the rest of the world. (-;
 Sorry about the flame bait, couldn't resist... I know they are both
very respectable databases and they are free software which is great.
-- "I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown-- Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @) Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ ICQ: 8561279 / WWW: http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/