Christopher Petrilli wrote:
Would there be any performance gain from having ZODB3 access a raw io device instead of using a filesystem, as can be done in FreeBSD for example?
While it might THEORETICALLY be possible to beat the file system, it's also non-portable,
Yes, but on some level, portability doesn't matter, because ZODB 3 has an *open* and, I hope, well defined storage interface. If someone is a wiz and programming raw devices and thinks they can come up with a lightening fast storage, more power to them. It doesn't have to be poratble unless *they* need portability. My point being that if someone thinks they have a cool idea for storing bits, go for it. Just follow the interface at http://www.zope.org/Documentation/Models/ZODB.
a headache, painful and all-together a bad idea. Even Oracle no longer requires this. There are 10000000 other places to focus optimization :-)
Despite my comments above, I agree wholehartedly. This is now a promising area for optimization. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:jim@digicool.com Python Powered! Technical Director (888) 344-4332 http://www.python.org Digital Creations http://www.digicool.com http://www.zope.org Under US Code Title 47, Sec.227(b)(1)(C), Sec.227(a)(2)(B) This email address may not be added to any commercial mail list with out my permission. Violation of my privacy with advertising or SPAM will result in a suit for a MINIMUM of $500 damages/incident, $1500 for repeats.