Subject | Re: Support for Tablespaces/Data-placement in Firebird? |
---|---|
Author | plinehan |
Post date | 2009-09-10T14:21:09Z |
"Leyne, Sean" <Sean@...> wrote:
servers run on that sort of hardware? I would respectfully
suggest very few - RAID arrays for some, maybe.
in the original IB6.0 release? As I said, I have memories of
it being mentioned - it would be a "nice to have" and it
wouldn't just be performance - selective backups for example?
Read only tablespaces? It could be an option for advanced
users while maintaining the current configuration as the
default - it's just an idea that struck me. Performance will
not be an issue for me with my "briedcase" type app.
Rgs.
Paul...
> There are a number of hardware solutions which have made theHmmm.... my question would then be, exactly how many Firebird
> need for such "hot" management a thing of the past.
> Those solutions are:
> - PCIe SSDs (97000 Read and 32000 Write random 4 KB IO/s)!!!
> - SATA SSDs (35000 Read and 3300 Write random 4 KB IO/s)!
> - Battery backup cached disk controllers (some with 4GB of
> write cache)
> - disk controllers with up to 128GB of SSD based Read cache
> - increases in RAM supported in servers to 256GB
servers run on that sort of hardware? I would respectfully
suggest very few - RAID arrays for some, maybe.
> I would argue that "hot" management is another featureWell, part of my question was about whether the code was there
> which Oracle/MS DBAs use to justify their jobs.
in the original IB6.0 release? As I said, I have memories of
it being mentioned - it would be a "nice to have" and it
wouldn't just be performance - selective backups for example?
Read only tablespaces? It could be an option for advanced
users while maintaining the current configuration as the
default - it's just an idea that struck me. Performance will
not be an issue for me with my "briedcase" type app.
Rgs.
Paul...
> Sean