Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 21:44:20 -0800 From: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org> To: "Brian T. Schellenberger" <bschellenberger@nc.rr.com> Cc: Sean Hamilton <sh@bel.bc.ca>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Random disk cache expiry Message-ID: <3E34C734.8010801@acm.org> References: <000501c2c4dd$f43ed450$16e306cf@slugabed.org> <3E34A6BB.2090601@acm.org> <001801c2c5c0$5666de10$16e306cf@slugabed.org> <200301270019.44066.bschellenberger@nc.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brian T. Schellenberger wrote: > This to me is imminently sensible. > In fact there seem like two rules that have come up in this discussion: > > 1. For sequential access, you should be very hesitant to throw away > *another* processes blocks, at least once you have used more than, say, > 25% of the cache or potential cache. > > 2. For sequential access, you should stop caching before you throw away > your own blocks. If it's sequential it is, it seems to me, always a > lose to throw away your *own* processes older bllocks on thee same > file. The question isn't "should I throw away blocks or not?". Obviously, the ideal is to keep everything in the cache, but that's not possible. The question is "what blocks should be discarded?" You've ruled out quite a few possibilities here. What blocks _should_ be discarded? Tim Kientzle To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E34C734.8010801>