From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Feb  5 12:30:09 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id MAA21139
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 12:30:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA21134
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 12:30:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id NAA14425; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 13:24:10 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199602052024.NAA14425@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: FAT filesystem performance
To: babkin@hq.icb.chel.su (Serge A. Babkin)
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 13:24:10 -0700 (MST)
Cc: terry@lambert.org, luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it, hackers@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <199602050350.IAA24118@hq.icb.chel.su> from "Serge A. Babkin" at Feb 5, 96 08:50:19 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > The FAT-caching in the MACH implementation (you *could* just port the
> > MACH code...) takes a significant amount of memory, IMO.
> 
> Hmm... FAT can contain at most 64K of entries, each 2 bytes long, so
> the needed amount of memory (if you cache raw FAT and don't try to make
> any ``cooked'' version) must be at most 128Kbytes long. IMHO the raw FAT 
> is enough convenient ant takes not very much of memory.

I guess this is true, unless you consider what preferential caching
does to the locality of reference model in the rest of BSD.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.