Re: Filesystem vs. Raw IO
- From: Carel-Jan Engel <cjpengel.dbalert@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 23:01:05 +0200
IBM claims they can reach nearly RAW-partition performance on filesystems
using concurrent IO supported by JFS2. Some figures (from the paper
http://unix.ittoolbox.com/browse.asp?c=UNIXPeerPublishing&r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2D1%2Eibm%2Ecom%2Fservers%2Faix%2Fwhitepapers%2Fdb%5Fperf%5Faix%2Epdf):
avg Trougput (tps) Raw LV's : Direct I/O : Concurrent I/O = 710.19 : 219.69
: 652.12.
avg Response Time (sec) Raw LV's : Direct I/O : Concurrent I/O = 0.06 :
0.12 : 0.07
They did the test with 9i. The paper also discusses the use of filesystems
in database environments.
I hope to be able to perform some tests this year. I'm curious how this
will compare with ASM in 10g.
Regards, Carel-Jan
===
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. (Derek Bok)
===
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Filesystem vs. Raw IO
- From: Nuno Souto
- References:
- Re: Filesystem vs. Raw IO
- From: Nuno Souto
- Re: Filesystem vs. Raw IO
- From: Mladen Gogala
- Re: Filesystem vs. Raw IO
- From: Nuno Souto
Other related posts:
- » Filesystem vs. Raw IO
- » Re: Filesystem vs. Raw IO
- » Re: Filesystem vs. Raw IO
- » Re: Filesystem vs. Raw IO
- » RE: Filesystem vs. Raw IO
- » RE: Filesystem vs. Raw IO
- » Re: Filesystem vs. Raw IO
- » Re: Filesystem vs. Raw IO
- » Re: Filesystem vs. Raw IO
- » Re: Filesystem vs. Raw IO
- » Re: Filesystem vs. Raw IO
- Re: Filesystem vs. Raw IO
- From: Nuno Souto
- Re: Filesystem vs. Raw IO
- From: Nuno Souto
- Re: Filesystem vs. Raw IO
- From: Mladen Gogala
- Re: Filesystem vs. Raw IO
- From: Nuno Souto