Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!van-bc!tacitus!clh
From: clh@tacitus.tfic.bc.ca (Chris Hermansen)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Client/Server processes and implementations
Keywords: Client Server Processes
Message-ID: <122@tacitus.tfic.bc.ca>
Date: 9 Nov 89 16:00:20 GMT
References: <2184@kodak.UUCP> <6895@sybase.sybase.com>
Reply-To: clh@tacitus.UUCP (Chris Hermansen)
Organization: Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants, Vancouver BC
Lines: 51

In article <6895@sybase.sybase.com> forrest@phobos.UUCP (Jon Forrest) writes:
>In article <2184@kodak.UUCP> deal@kodak.UUCP () writes:
...
>>I know little about Sybase but I am sure that some of their people who
>>contribute to this newsgroup can add some information here (please?).
>>
>
>One of the strong points of the Sybase architecture is that we
>require only one operating system process per Server. Internal
>to this process is our own multitasking kernel which handles
>many of the facilities that other systems rely on the operating
>system to provide. Another benefit of this approach is that our

I apologize in advance if this sounds like a flame; it's not meant to be :-)

So (I believe) you are claiming that Sybase is `better' at implementing
the elements of the `multitasking kernel' you hint at above?  Better than
what?  If I may guess at what the original poster was hinting at, s/he is
of the opinion that your software is more efficient than others because it
uses fewer processes; your answer appears to be that you use your own
rather than the operating system's.  In order to substantiate your claim for
improved efficiency, you might want to present some more solid info as to
how *your* kernel is better than the O/S.

Imagine if I were to advertise a car that had a 25 hp gasoline engine,
got 75mpg of gas, and went 300mph.  To anyone surprised enough to enquire,
I would grudgingly admit that it ALSO had a 4000hp kerosene burning turbojet
in the back that you needed to use to get to anything over 12mph, and then
your mileage went down to 2mpg.  This is probably a poor analogy, but that's
how the above statement strikes me.

>system to provide. Another benefit of this approach is that our
>Server needs no special privileges to run. The operating system
>sees our Server as just another non-privileged user process.

Maybe I'm being a little dense here; I don't have a strong feeling as to
why any other architecture needs `special privileges' to run.

>Therefore, we can't crash the machine running our Server.

Haw.  I've heard THIS before.

Sorry about the above if I sound like I'm overreacting; I certainly have
nothing against Sybase or M. Forrest.  This reply just seems a little too
vague (relative to the original question, at least) to let it pass into
folklore.

Chris Hermansen                         Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants
Voice: 1 604 733 0731                   302 - 958 West 8th Avenue
FAX:   1 604 733 0634                   Vancouver B.C. CANADA
uunet!ubc-cs!van-bc!tacitus!clh         V5Z 1E5