On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 05:45:44AM +0000, Casey Allen Shobe wrote: > On Saturday 09 April 2005 02:05, Peter Stuge wrote: > > Unless that's a very powerful and very idle system I still think > > that's the cache talking.. Any access to the directory will put > > parts of it in the cache. > > Ahh, well it's being written into pretty constantly because I get > mail on the list pretty consistently, so it must be cached.
Ah, yep. > But in that case, I would assume most of the mail directories would > be cached since they are being accessed all the time anyways. Unfortunately the cache size is finite. :) I don't know the exact algorithms used, but Linux usually uses most of the unused RAM for cache. Which won't go too far for me with my 2GB of mail.. If you can afford storing mail on RAM the problem will certainly be MUCH smaller. > If they were being stat'ed every so often then it should remain > pretty fast since it wouldn't have been long since the last stat, > right? Sure, until something else is put into the cache.. :\ //Peter
