Re: [Patch] document ext3 requirements (was Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck)

2008-01-17 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Jan 17, 2008 7:29 AM, Szabolcs Szakacsits [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Similarly to ZFS, Windows Server 2008 also has self-healing NTFS: I guess that is enough votes to justify going ahead and trying an implementation of the reverse mapping ideas I posted. But of course more votes for this is

Re: [PATCH 00/37] Permit filesystem local caching

2008-02-20 Thread Daniel Phillips
Hi David, On Wednesday 20 February 2008 08:05, David Howells wrote: These patches add local caching for network filesystems such as NFS. Have you got before/after benchmark results? Regards, Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a

Re: [PATCH 00/37] Permit filesystem local caching

2008-02-21 Thread Daniel Phillips
Hi David, I am trying to spot the numbers that show the sweet spot for this optimization, without much success so far. Who is supposed to win big? Is this mainly about reducing the load on the server, or is the client supposed to win even with a lightly loaded server? When you say Ext3

Re: [PATCH 00/37] Permit filesystem local caching

2008-02-21 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Thursday 21 February 2008 16:07, David Howells wrote: The way the client works is like this: Thanks for the excellent ascii art, that cleared up the confusion right away. What are you trying to do exactly? Are you actually playing with it, or just looking at the numbers I've produced?

Re: [PATCH 00/37] Permit filesystem local caching

2008-02-22 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Friday 22 February 2008 04:48, David Howells wrote: But looking up the object in the cache should be nearly free - much less than a microsecond per block. The problem is that you have to do a database lookup of some sort, possibly involving several synchronous disk operations. Right,

Re: [PATCH 00/37] Permit filesystem local caching

2008-02-25 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Monday 25 February 2008 15:19, David Howells wrote: So I guess there's a problem in cachefiles's efficiency - possibly due to the fact that it tries to be fully asynchronous. OK, not just my imagination, and it makes me feel better about the patch set because efficiency bugs are fixable

Re: [PATCH 00/37] Permit filesystem local caching

2008-02-26 Thread Daniel Phillips
I need to respond to this in pieces... first the bit that is bugging me: * two new page flags I need to keep track of two bits of per-cached-page information: (1) This page is known by the cache, and that the cache must be informed if the page is going to go away. I still do not

Re: [PATCH 00/37] Permit filesystem local caching

2008-02-26 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Tuesday 26 February 2008 06:33, David Howells wrote: Suppose one were to take a mundane approach to the persistent cache problem instead of layering filesystems. What you would do then is change NFS's -write_page and variants to fiddle the persistent cache It is a requirement laid

<    1   2