Wilson Snyder <wsny...@wsnyder.org> wrote: >>I think it would be a pretty interesting idea. >> >>Obviously you would need to trust all the other clients writing into >>the cache, but that's probably feasible in this environment. >> >>A shared cache kept entirely in ram might grow fairly big, but it's >>not so expensive to get an 8GB or 16GB machine devoted to this. > > Why don't you just put the cache on a NFS (/CIFS) mounted > volume? With the most recent version this should work well.
Just to justify why I say it would be interesting: memcached is becoming a semi-standard protocol for a distributed hash map on a local network, which is pretty much what ccache wants. There are multiple implementations including load balancing, persistence, etc. clients using memcached will cache-miss or rebalance to other servers if one is down. nfs/cifs clients tend to hang or fail unless you have a fairly complex or expensive server setup. The protocol is pretty simple. It doesn't necessarily require root intervention on either end and it is pretty platform-independent. Doing atomic get/set on NFS or CIFS is a bit of an abstraction inversion, with almost certainly more round trips than memcached. It tends to fail in interesting ways when the client's caches incoherent state. Regarding the value size limit, I would probably split the o file into 1MB chunks. -- Martin _______________________________________________ ccache mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache