Concerning the >2GB files on Intel hardware I agree that is a hard
one. Which is why I have been bringing it up. Are we as a Community
going to consider the requirements that Oracle & Informix support
bring to the table?
I keep hearing this one, but quite frankly, I'm not convinced. Oracle
strongly recommends that you use raw disk partitions for its databases,
not regular Unix files.
The issue of raw disk access is more important, but even there I'd be
surprised if Oracle could get the functionality they needed using
fsync().
Personally, my feeling is that B-tree support to make large directories
searches is more important than >2GB files. More people will win as a
result of doin the B-tree work than will win doing the >2GB files work.
So that's how I'm setting my priorities. Other folks are of course free
to set their own priorities.
If someone who understands the kernel programming issues wants to try to
tackle the >2GB file problem, I'd be happy to work with them. There's a
cheat you can do which bypasses the generic file read/write routines
(which require >2GB support in the VFS) for files >2GB which would
probably not be *that* hard to do. It might not be the most efficient
thing in the world, since it would have to bypass the page cache, but it
would at least provide the basic level of functionality.
- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html