William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
It seems that a more effective high-water mark is to set an upper bounds on the desired cache size.
My understanding is that working out the size of a directory is more expensive than working out what you have left on a filesystem. Is this correct?
If it is cheap and simple to determine what we have left, then it is cheap and simple to simply not try and cache a file that we know doesn't fit, or that we know is too close to some safety margin. Right now cache has no safety net to stop it hitting a wall at all.
In addition, giving the admin the option to define how much space they want left, as an alternative to how big they want the cache, at the end of the day amounts to the same thing. Let the admin decide.
Regards, Graham --
