Todays databases like oracle, MS SQL requires an OS to run... Dont you think that a database which had direct access to the system resources will be more effecient since it can be optimised for the database use.. where there is no OS butthe database takes care of everything like meory management, disk management etc are there any products available like this...
thanx in advance
Why do you think that not having an OS between the application and the hardware will make things faster? It wont.....you still need code to manage all those things and your suggestion is that this should be further pushed onto database designers?
We need a smiley of a guy laughing so hard that he chokes.
Use a striped-down version of the Linux kernel, *BSDs or probably any *nix will do. Just include enough things to run, but nothing more. You'll get a very efficient computer.
SoKrA-BTS "Judge not the program I made, but the one I've yet to code"
I say what I say, I mean what I mean.
IDE: emacs + make + gcc and proud of it.
Take Oracle as example: A sufficiently large Oracle Database will run on a cluster, preferably specially certified Unix systems. It has data files in direct access mode ( default config ). It also needs a backup system. As far as I know Oracle has no out-of-the-box put-my-database-on-tape backup application, so that's Oracle certified third party software.Todays databases like oracle, MS SQL requires an OS to run... Dont you think that a database which had direct access to the system resources will be more effecient since it can be optimised for the database use.. where there is no OS butthe database takes care of everything like meory management, disk management etc are there any products available like this...
Putting all that into one large OS ( clustering, hardware support of definetly non-standard machines, reliable backup, networking, database kernel ) would be a little bit more efficient, but hell to maintain and program. If any part breaks, the whole system goes down, no chance to replace parts with another vendors software/hardware. It would also be a monopoly even worse than Microsoft.
hth
-nv
She was so Blonde, she spent 20 minutes looking at the orange juice can because it said "Concentrate."
When in doubt, read the FAQ.
Then ask a smart question.
atleast microsoft and IBM got us away from the very horrible confines of too many architectures. for example, one of my computer science prof. when he took computer science at the U. of Sydney, they had a computer where a Byte was 60 bits. If we look at modern computers, we have SPARC, x86, PPC, and Alpha(IIRC), a far cry from where every individual school had their own differen architecture.It would also be a monopoly even worse than Microsoft.
thanx...Originally posted by -KEN-
We need a smiley of a guy laughing so hard that he chokes.
