David Schultz wrote: > The weight idea is very interesting. NetBSD does this using > priorities; all the swap devices of a given priority are filled > round robin before devices of lower priority, the idea being that > the slower ones are a last resort (e.g. NFS). On the other hand, > this design allows large and fast swap devices to start swapping > to death before the `backup' devices see any action. It isn't > clear to me whether priorities or "fill levels" are better. > (Certainly a hybrid is possible, that is, weights within priority > levels.)
I like the idea of a moving average on time-from-request-to-service. 8-). Works great for Server Load Balancing, too. The moving average takes load into account, without explicit load notification (i.e. no need to have a load notification protocol between NFS clients and servers, etc.). > This may be a better project for me than swapoff in the immediate > future because I won't have to understand how to track down the > appropriate VM objects and handle them in a kosher manner. > Implementing weights/priorities will also involve dynamically > allocating struct swdevt's, which should be done anyway and will > only be harder after swapoff() is written. 8-). "Now that everyone is talking about it, better get my hacks in first, so that other people have to integrate with my changes, instead of the other way around"... Actually, I think it's a nice idea for an incremental project. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
