Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:51:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:50:57 -0500 Received: from [204.42.16.60] ([204.42.16.60]:46609 "EHLO gerf.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:50:51 -0500 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:50:46 -0600 From: The Doctor What To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: vm philosophising Message-ID: <20020121095046.A30401@gerf.org> Mail-Followup-To: The Doctor What , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To:

<20020118154239.A11920@xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.17i In-Reply-To: <20020118154239.A11920@xs4all.nl>; from faasen@xs4all.nl on Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 03:42:39PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Tommy Faasen (faasen@xs4all.nl) [020118 08:47]: > 2-DBMS: 1 or 2 big programs which sometimes even do their own > memory management.Fragmentation and latency isn't issue here I > think however moving ltos of data to and from swap is. A lot of times a DBMS is bulit that way because they assume they know better than the OS designer how memory should be managed. Same reason they usually use raw writting the the drive instead of using the OS calls. Is this right or fair? I don't know. But it does imply that if a VM or FS layer for an OS performs well enough, that a DBM system might be built that would be built to take advantage of the OS's VM and FS layer. Ciao! -- "When you have to shoot, shoot! Don't talk." --Tuco (The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly) The Doctor What: Kaboom! http://docwhat.gerf.org/ docwhat@gerf.org KF6VNC - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/