🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1k7la9INNk6c@sol.tis.com>, mjr@tis.com (Marcus J Ranum) writes:
>
> IPI's going to be a lot better
> for database or other applications like imaging than it will
> be for NFS. ..... 

  Imaging, maybe, but I see this statement made a lot re databases and I
  don't understand it.  "Database" does not equate with large sequential 
  reads; in some cases it does, in some cases it doesn't, there just ain't
  no generalization since databases span much of the applications spectrum.

  Actually, I would say that a lot of people spend a lot of time to cleverly
  construct databases and software to reduce sequential data traversal to a
  minimum, or eliminate it altogether.  In the situations where this can be
  done (and I would guess that in the majority of applications, it is the
  correct and most useful strategy), and where there is a lot of user activity,
  I would want to spread the data out among as many controllers and under as 
  many read/write heads as I could - to the extent that the cpu and systems 
  software can handle it.  Cheaper, smaller disks, but more of them, would
  then seem to be the more appropriate choice.


  greg pavlov
  pavlov@fstrf.org