On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 8:44 pm, erik quanstrom wrote:
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.
Yes - sessionfs satisfied the first case, items falling into the second
class were served from a normal 9p server (w/no cache).
perhaps the
data that needs cache coherency doesn't need full file sematics.
I think they are two separate issues.
-eric
