Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!osiris!eric
From: eric@osiris.UUCP (Eric Bergan)
Newsgroups: net.database,net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Database software for UNIX systems
Message-ID: <676@osiris.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Feb-86 08:13:09 EST
Article-I.D.: osiris.676
Posted: Wed Feb 12 08:13:09 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Feb-86 06:14:56 EST
References: <426@godot.UUCP> <164@hscfvax.UUCP> <131@wgivax.UUCP> <1133@ptsfa.UUCP> <509@mtxinu.UUCP> <2155@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Johns Hopkins Hospital
Lines: 22
Xref: linus net.database:200 net.unix-wizards:13941

> We, at BRL have a lock daemon supplied by RTI.  As far as I know, we are the
> only such installation.  It was developed for us by RTI, at our insistence,
> as a prototype to aviod the kernel mod required by INGRES 2.0.  We have been
> using it successfully since June 1985.  I have been trying to persuade RTI
> to support it as an alternative; but they won't commit themselves.
> 
>     Maybe a little pressure from netland...

	Last I had heard, the lock daemon was significantly slower than
doing the locking as part of a device driver. Is this still true? In
doing some quick checks of how other database systems do locking, I have
learned that they largely lean towards the use of shared memory under
System V. Those that support BSD at all use lock daemons through sockets,
but at significant decrease in performance. For our own application,
which is running queries at high transaction rates, I actually prefer
the device driver approach so that I can get every iota of performance out
of the system that is possible.

-- 

					eric
					...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!osiris!eric