Re: Performance on 8CPU's and 32GB of RAM

On 2007-09-05 Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On 9/5/07, Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers <lists(at)planetcobalt(dot)net> wrote:
>> On 2007-09-05 Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>> On 9/5/07, Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers <lists(at)planetcobalt(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> On 2007-09-05 Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>>>> And there's the issue that with windows / NTFS that when one
>>>>> process opens a file for read, it locks it for all other users.
>>>>> This means that things like virus scanners can cause odd,
>>>>> unpredictable failures of your database.
>>>>
>>>> Uh... what? Locking isn't done by the filesystem but by
>>>> applications (which certainly can decide to not lock a file when
>>>> opening it). And no one in his right mind would ever have a virus
>>>> scanner access the files of a running database, regardless of
>>>> operating system or filesystem.
>>>
>>> Exactly, the default is to lock the file. The application has to
>>> explicitly NOT lock it. It's the opposite of linux.
>>
>> Yes. So? It's still up to the application, and it still has nothing
>> at all to do with the filesystem.
>
> And if you look at my original reply, you'll see that I said WINDOWS /
> NTFS. not just NTFS. i.e. it's a windowsism.

I am aware of what you wrote. However, since the locking behaviour is
exactly the same with Windows/FAT32 or Windows/%ANY_OTHER_FILESYSTEM%
your statement is still wrong.

Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
"The Mac OS X kernel should never panic because, when it does, it
seriously inconveniences the user."
--http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2004/tn2118.html