Re: Raw vs. cooked

From: Tom Smith <thomas_g_smith@yahoo.com> > >Let's put this issue to rest -- or maybe not: No, I don't think we will. :-) >Is IDS's performance better using raw diskspace or the Unix filesystems, >aka "cooked files?" A Sun field sales/system engineer recently told me >that Sun's filesystems are so sophisticated now that the performance is >identical. Another system developer told me that he had benchmarked the >two, and had seen a slight disadvantage to using Informix on Solaris >with raw space. However, he said a different Unix flavor had abysmal >cooked file performance compared to raw. Jeez, imagine that, a Sun sales engineer who believes that their filesystem is faster than raw IO. >What have others found? Does Informix have any published (recent) >benchmarks that address this question? I've never heard of a benchmark, but FWIW, I *always* use raw disk. You could run your own benchmark, but remember, if your underlying hardware ever changes, the results will probably also change. Because I'm not an OS hacker, I couldn't tell you the mechanics of your OS's I/O routines, but I'm pretty sure that raw will always be at least as fast as cooked. Always has been in my experience. Actually, I'm pretty sure of myself on Solaris, because if cooked was faster, Art Kagel would use it and advocate it, and since he doesn't... :-) You could run your own benchmark, but remember, if your underlying hardware ever changes, the results will probably also change. So, no, I don't think we're going to put this one to bed here. Well, not much, anyway... :-) That'll be $0.02 please... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com