Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site 3comvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!3comvax!mikes From: mikes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Shannon) Newsgroups: net.database Subject: UNIX + database Message-ID: <164@3comvax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 22-Aug-85 19:29:50 EDT Article-I.D.: 3comvax.164 Posted: Thu Aug 22 19:29:50 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 20:09:29 EDT Distribution: net Organization: 3Com Corp; Mountain View, CA Lines: 20 I'm curious about the 'suitability' of UNIX with respect to database implementations. I've heard criticisms about the file system because to find a given sector in a file may require looking at up to 3 other sectors associated with the file inode. Some people say that 'extent-based' file systems are inherently faster than unix's. I've also heard that databases usually rely on locking primitives which aren't present in UNIX. (So how do UNIX databases perform locking?). I've heard that SystemV UNIX (release 2?) has now defined some locking primitives. Is this true? Doesn't this imply some important changes to the kernel? What about different file access methods (ISAM, hashed, etc)? Can these always be satisfactorily layered on unix's bytestream file system as a library? Isn't this expensive in terms of performance? Personally, I think UNIX is the best development system anywhere. I'd like to see it become the most popular success in the business arena. And I think UNIX's performance in supporting databases is a key issue to this success. So, what are your opinions? -thanks, Michael Shannon ({ihnp4,hplabs}!oliveb!3comvax!mikes)