At 06:21 AM 12/27/2000 -0500, Andy Lewis wrote:

>Though a lurker here, I am using and have great hopes for IB. I would
>agree both on the general guidleines for adding competing features, as
>well as on the "dirtier" isolation levels. On many systems they result
>is significnatly reduced overhead when using a read-only data source.
>Whilethe performance gains may or may not apply in IB, people are used
>to it, and well, perception is reality.

OK. Why don't we just implement "dirty read" by mapping it to
read-committed with shadows? Just as fast, just a shade less
unreliable. I like it.

>That said, I also have another question for the Architect group. I have
>been evaluating the superserver versus classic model and classic seems
>to offer me some significant advantages (I'm running Superserver right
>now on an SMP Linux box). Before migrating to it however, I was
>wondering what the long term goals are. Is the classic model going to
>continue to be supported?

Until the superserver version supports SMP, the ability to identify
and kill rogue requests, and the ability to support large caches, the
classic won't go away. Maybe never. But when those capabilities are
in the server, other faults of classic (security, "hot" pages, clutter)
will be significant. Besides, it's open source, so you decide what
goes forward and what is abandoned.


Regards,

Ann
www.ibphoenix.com
We have answers.