From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Feb 5 00:39:31 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id AAA11664 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 00:39:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from labinfo.iet.unipi.it (labinfo.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.5]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA11657 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 00:39:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (luigi@localhost) by labinfo.iet.unipi.it (8.6.5/8.6.5) id JAA20312; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 09:37:22 +0100 From: Luigi Rizzo Message-Id: <199602050837.JAA20312@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Subject: Re: FAT filesystem performance To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 09:37:21 +0100 (MET) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org, rnordier@iafrica.com In-Reply-To: <199602050734.SAA02716@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Feb 5, 96 06:34:23 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > 128K is quite small now, but it still isn't necessary to lock it into > memory. Caching it in a normal LRU way should work reasonably well. > Perhaps FAT buffers should have a higher priority than other buffers > for msdosfs, but they probably shouldn't have higher priority than > buffers for other file systems. agreed. That's why I thought not to develop a special purpose caching policy and try to rely on what is already available. Especally in FreeBSD, where the FS & VM caches are merged, and the system should be quite flexible. Luigi ==================================================================== Luigi Rizzo Dip. di Ingegneria dell'Informazione email: luigi@iet.unipi.it Universita' di Pisa tel: +39-50-568533 via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy) fax: +39-50-568522 http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ ====================================================================