> Sure - however, there is a case for loose caches as well. For example, > lots of remote file data is essentially read-only, or at the very > worst its updated very infrequently. Brucee had
i might be speaking out of school. but i worry about the qualifiers "essentially" and "very infrequently". they tend not to scale. what about drawing a sharp line? these mounts are static and cachable. these are not and need coherency. perhaps the data that needs cache coherency doesn't need full file sematics. - erik
