Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:42:30 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> Cc: dillon@apollo.backplane.com (Matthew Dillon), dyson@iquest.net, dg@root.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Directories not VMIO cached at all! Message-ID: <19990418164232.4DC7C1F2A@spinner.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 18 Apr 1999 09:52:21 EST." <199904181452.JAA18474@dyson.iquest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"John S. Dyson" wrote:
> > :You are right about VDIR's not being B_VMIO. That was a decision made ear
ly
> > :on when the vfs_bio code was not trustworthy :-). It is okay, and advanta
geous
> > :to cache VDIR's with merged cache.
[..]
> The only advantage of getting rid of B_MALLOC would be to totally relax
> the amount of memory used for caching directories. The disadvantage
> is the potentially gross amount of internal fragmentation of memory.
>
> Perhaps before getting rid of B_MALLOC, take a look at the standard
> mix of directory sizes (don't just look at news servers.) If there is an
> extreme bias towards 512 or 2048, then you might consider keeping B_MALLOC.
Would small block devices/filesystems likely be affected? (ie: msdos,
ext2fs etc)
Cheers,
-Peter
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?19990418164232.4DC7C1F2A>