From owner-freebsd-fs Tue Mar 19 08:35:20 1996 Return-Path: owner-fs Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id IAA13557 for fs-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 08:35:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from tombstone.sunrem.com (tombstone.sunrem.com [199.104.90.54]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA13521 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 08:35:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (from brandon@localhost) by tombstone.sunrem.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24386; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 09:34:50 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 09:34:49 -0700 (MST) From: Brandon Gillespie To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: database filesystems, BSD worth it? Just go SCO? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-fs@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk We are running a database system in unix on PCs, currently running Unixware. Our experience has been a nightmare, to say the least. We are now in the position to upgrade our database driver, and we have been considering taking the opportunity to upgrade the operating system as well. My current dillemma is that there is 'general knowledge' floating around that the SCO/Unixware filesystem is basically the best for running a database system on, whereas the BSD filesystem is not... I'm wondering if there are any facts anywhere to solidify/refute this claim? Also, is it possible to run different 'style's of BSD filesystems in FreeBSD? Perhaps one which is more capable of handling a database system? I know that in unixware we use the 'VFS' filesystem, versus what it is by default... -Brandon Gillespie- (BTW, the database system we use is 'Progress') From owner-freebsd-fs Tue Mar 19 15:49:54 1996 Return-Path: owner-fs Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA11887 for fs-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:49:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from neworder.cc.uky.edu (neworder.cc.uky.edu [128.163.18.198]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA11882 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:49:52 -0800 (PST) Received: (from soward@localhost) by neworder.cc.uky.edu (8.7/Soward0.1) id SAA03747 for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 18:50:34 -0500 (GMT-0500) Message-Id: <199603192350.SAA03747@neworder.cc.uky.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 4.0 v141) Content-Type: text/plain In-Reply-To: X-Nextstep-Mailer: Mail 3.3 (Enhance 1.1) Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.141) From: John Soward Date: Tue, 19 Mar 96 18:50:33 -0500 To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: database filesystems, BSD worth it? Just go SCO? Reply-To: soward@service1.uky.edu References: Organization: University of Kentucky Technical Services X-URL: "http://neworder.cc.uky.edu/" Sender: owner-fs@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >My current dillemma is that there is 'general knowledge' floating around >that the SCO/Unixware filesystem is basically the best for running a >database system on, whereas the BSD filesystem is not... I thought the best option was to just have the DB write to the raw device? --- John Soward JpS Systems Programmer 'The Midnight sun will burn you up.' University of Kentucky (NeXT and MIME mail OK) -R. Smith :::I'm not speaking for UK. I may not even be speaking for myself::: From owner-freebsd-fs Wed Mar 20 03:01:40 1996 Return-Path: owner-fs Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id DAA24056 for fs-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 03:01:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from nixpbe.pdb.sni.de (mail.sni.de [192.109.2.33]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA24047 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 03:01:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nerv@localhost) by nixpbe.pdb.sni.de (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA19419 for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 12:00:32 +0100 Message-Id: <199603201100.MAA19419@nixpbe.pdb.sni.de> Subject: Re: database filesystems, BSD worth it? Just go SCO? To: brandon@tombstone.sunrem.com (Brandon Gillespie) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 96 11:57:48 MET From: Greg Lehey Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: ; from "Brandon Gillespie" at Mar 19, 96 9:34 am X-Mailer: xmail 2.4 (based on ELM 2.2 PL16) Sender: owner-fs@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > We are running a database system in unix on PCs, currently running > Unixware. Our experience has been a nightmare, to say the least. We are > now in the position to upgrade our database driver, and we have been > considering taking the opportunity to upgrade the operating system as well. Well, a lot of people jumped in on this one, didn't they? What were the problems with UnixWare? > My current dillemma is that there is 'general knowledge' floating around > that the SCO/Unixware filesystem is basically the best for running a > database system on, I don't think SCO has *anything* going for it, except possibly that the software was written on that platform. SCO uses (or used, last time I saw it), something home grown called afs, which is basically a modified s5fs (System V file system), which is itself a warmed over Seventh Edition File System. afs does have better performance than s5fs, but so does just about anything else. UnixWare, on the other hand, uses either ufs (UNIX File System, originally called the Berkeley Fast File System), or vxfs (Veritas File System). My experience has been that vxfs has been very unreliable and is a pig to maintain. I haven't compared performance. UFS works OK. As the old name implies, it comes from BSD. Not surprisingly, it is also the standard file system on all BSD variants. > whereas the BSD filesystem is not... I'm wondering > if there are any facts anywhere to solidify/refute this claim? Also, is > it possible to run different 'style's of BSD filesystems in FreeBSD? I suppose you're referring to virtual file systems, such as vxfs, ufs, nfs, rfs and cdfs (is that the name) under UnixWare. Yes, FreeBSD has a number of file systems, though there's only one (ufs) for hard disks. I don't see any advantage in having vxfs as well under UnixWare, though vjfs (Veritas Journalling File System) would appear to offer some advantages if it were offered. BTW, although ufs on System V is derived from BSD, they have modified it enough that you will not be able to mount a System V ufs file system on FreeBSD: you'll have to rebuild it. > Perhaps one which is more capable of handling a database system? I know > that in unixware we use the 'VFS' filesystem, versus what it is by default... Ah, this is vxfs, I suppose. See my comments above. Out of interest, what does "General Knowledge" say about ufs on System V? > (BTW, the database system we use is 'Progress') On the whole, I think I could thoroughly recommend ufs on any platform. I don't feel as confident about recommending FreeBSD for a database system. First, support for COFF (the SCO object file format) is incomplete, and there doesn't seem to be much interest in improving it. Support for ELF (the native UnixWare object file format) is there and is being actively worked on, but the emphasis is more on compatibility with Linux than with UnixWare. UnixWare also supports COFF executables, so it's possible that your Progress stuff is really in COFF. Use the 'file' program to tell you. Greg ------------------------------------------------------------ Greg Lehey LEMIS grog@lemis.de Schellnhausen 2 Tel: +49-6637-919123 36325 Feldatal Fax: +49-6637-919122 Germany