RE: raw vs cooked filesystem for Oracle

From: d cheng <dc4oracle_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20060721231458.23066.qmail@web36603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Thank you Kevin and Allen!!    

• David

Kevin Closson <kevinc_at_polyserve.com> wrote:

      anye filesystem that claims support for raw MUST do so with   direct IO. If performance is not the same as RAW, don't buy it.               

---

  From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Allen, Brandon Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 10:24 AM
To: dc4oracle_at_yahoo.com; oracle-l_at_freelists.org Subject: RE: raw vs cooked filesystem for Oracle   

  According to the below white paper, they were able to get near-raw performance on AIX with the Concurrent I/O option:    

  http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/aix/whitepapers/db_perf_aix.pdf    

  I've also had good/excellent performance with concurrent I/O, but never compared it to raw so I can't really say how the two would stack up.             

---

  From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of d cheng Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 10:11 AM    

  I am writing a recommendation for one of my clients on using raw versus cooked filesystems for Oracle data files. Have you come across any recent documents regarding this topic?   Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message or attachments hereto. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of this company shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.                  

---

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Received on Fri Jul 21 2006 - 18:14:58 CDT