Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-50,: Re: PATCH: Raw device IO for 2.1.131

# Re: PATCH: Raw device IO for 2.1.131

Chris Evans (chris@ferret.lmh.ox.ac.uk)
Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:37:11 +0000 (GMT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Johnny_Teve=DFen?=: "sendfile() documentation"
- Previous message: Jean-Michel VANSTEENE: "Proposal"
- In reply to: WCOEKAER.US.ORACLE.COM: "Re: PATCH: Raw device IO for 2.1.131"
- Next in thread: Richard B. Johnson: "Re: PATCH: Raw device IO for 2.1.131"

On 15 Dec 1998, WCOEKAER.US.ORACLE.COM wrote:

> There is also the fact that raw io for databases IS faster. Whatever type
> filesystem you design, doesn't matter since we know which blocks to write

[...]

> did a cool job;)... but I would like to hear solutions to the above, if
> raw dev ain't the way to go technology-wise... if you cannot give a
> solution, then what keeps you from implementing raw dev as a short term
> solution (2.3) ?

Well from Linus' comments it sounds like raw devices won't be appearing in
2.3, or indeed, ever.

However, it would seem
1) Raw devices can be implemented in a technically clean manner
2) There is "big customer" demand for this feature, i.e. serious database
applications
3) RedHat are paying for code development of this feature

Based on 1) 2) and 3), I predict that raw devices will be standard on any
"serious" linux distribution by the way of a vendor added kernel patch. It
doesn't really matter if the patches aren't in the "official" kernel tree.

Chris

-
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.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Johnny_Teve=DFen?=: "sendfile() documentation"
- Previous message: Jean-Michel VANSTEENE: "Proposal"
- In reply to: WCOEKAER.US.ORACLE.COM: "Re: PATCH: Raw device IO for 2.1.131"
- Next in thread: Richard B. Johnson: "Re: PATCH: Raw device IO for 2.1.131"