From: David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: ice-broker scan thread
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:34:26 -0700
Message-ID: <438BDA52.7090601@boreham.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0511291513260.18370@linuxworld.com.au>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0511282217470.13586@josh.db>
<Pine.LNX.4.58.0511291429330.18112@linuxworld.com.au>
<438BD493.3070507@boreham.org>
<Pine.LNX.4.58.0511291513260.18370@linuxworld.com.au>
>
>The paper I linked to seemed to suggest that they weren't using async IO
>in 9.2 -- which is fairly old. I'm not sure why the authors didn't test
>10g.
>
>
...<reads paper>... ok, interesting. Did they say that Oracle isn't
using aio ?
I can't see that. They that Oracle has no more than one outstanding I/O
operation in flight per concurrent query,
and they appear to think that's a bad thing. I'm not seeing
that myself. Perhaps once I sleep on it, it'll become clear what they're
getting at.
One theory for lack of aio in Oracle as tested in that paper would be
that they
were testing on Linux. Since aio is relatively new in Linux I wouldn't
be surprised
if Oracle didn't actually use it until it's known to be widely deployed
in the field
and to have proven reliability. Perhaps we've reached that state around now,
and so Oracle may not yet have released an aio-capable Linux version of
their
RDBMS. Just a theory...someone from those tubular towers lurking here
could tell us for sure I guess...
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: david_list@boreham.org
Subject: Re: ice-broker scan thread
In-Reply-To: <438BDA52.7090601@boreham.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox