--On Wednesday, November 08, 2000 08:45:10 AM -0500 Chas Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Default writes:
>> With MAX_FRAGS=1, the bottleneck is rx.
>> Better than a total cache bypass would be a more efficient cache filling
>> mechanism, so data doesn't have to get copied around all the time, and
>> perhaps some way of discarding dirty UFS pages without ever writing them
>> to the cache at all. Then you wouldn't need to hack at deciding which
>> files should be cached and which shouldn't.
>
> it would be a worthwhile effort to fix the caching scheme. but i see a
> possible benefit to bypassing the cache completely for large files (i.e.
>>> larger cache size) espc if you are just reading them once. they tend
> to flush all the other files out of the cache. i could be wrong.
> optimizing the cache would be great but is currently beyond my
> understanding of afs.
Then you've either made a decision for too many people, or you need an
interface to pick and choose what files will be cached and what won't. The
problem with allowing per-file selection of this is you've then made end
users "know" they're using AFS and deal with it if the default is not what
they want. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
More particularly anyone with a relatively slow connection who wants to
look at a large file more than once will either have to learn how this
works, or hate us.
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/openafs-devel
