It's not supposed to, as presently defined, right (scan resistence)? Matt
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Daniel Gryniewicz <d...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 08/11/2017 09:21 AM, Frank Filz wrote: >>> >>> That seems overkill to me. How many strategies would we support (and >>> test)? >>> >>> Part of the problem is that we've drastically changed how FDs are >>> handled. >>> We need to rethink how LRU should work in that context, I think. >> >> >> I wonder also if taking pinning out of the equation (which moved cache >> objects that had persistent state on them into an entirely separate queue) >> has had an effect. > > > Could be. > >> Hopefully those objects get quickly promoted to MRU of L1 >> (since they should have multiple NFS requests against them). > > > Hmmm... This raises an interesting point. Yes, more operations should > happen, but the primary ref for the handle (taken by NFS4_OP_PUTFH) will be > once per compound, not once per op. So it would take multiple compounds to > advance to the MRU of L1. Not a problem for multiple reads or writes, but > if a file is opened and read/written once, and then left alone, it won't > advance to the MRU of L1. > > Daniel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Nfs-ganesha-devel mailing list Nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs-ganesha-devel
