> I don't consider it inefficient. Sure, if you look at this one aspect > of the caching taken out of context it may appear to be inefficient, > but if you look at the whole enchilada the memory issue is nothing > more then a minor footnote - not worth the effort of worrying about. This is like saying that there is nothing to be gained by making better use of available cache memory. I don't care that the cache is dynamic and caches the right things when the cache is effectively made so small that it doesn't cache my working set. Even with VMIO turned on for directories, Linux kicks our ass in caching meta-data unless you have a lot of memory. That sucks. -- Justin To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
- Re[2]: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance boost David Xu
- Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance boost Doug Barton
- Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance boost Justin T. Gibbs
- Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance boost Peter Wemm
- Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance b... Matt Dillon
- Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance boost Matt Dillon
- Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance boost Justin T. Gibbs
- Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance b... Matt Dillon
- Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance b... Justin T. Gibbs
- Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance b... Matt Dillon
- Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance b... Doug Barton
- Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance b... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance b... Doug Barton
- Re: sysctl optimisations (was: Filesystem g... Brian Somers
- Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance b... Doug White
- Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance b... Maxim Sobolev
- Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance b... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance b... Maxim Sobolev
- Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance b... Alfred Perlstein