From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 03:14:57 -0700
From: "Roman V. Shaposhnik" <rvs@sun.com>
In-reply-to: <2125ed224c77c85fc13d81eb95377a2a@terzarima.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-id: <1216289697.4327.55.camel@goose.sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <2125ed224c77c85fc13d81eb95377a2a@terzarima.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] 8 cores
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e98422fc-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025


On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 10:07 +0100, Charles Forsyth wrote:
> > I could imagine that databases use mmap() havily
>
> it's a little mystery for me why they would do that since it's slower (or ought to be),

slower compared to what? I'd expect the biggest slowdown for
read()/write() be not the price of a syscall, but what you
pay for copying data in/out of the kernel. With mmap() there's
no copying.

Thanks,
Roman.