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)