On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 04:03 PM, Lyle Seaman wrote:
I think the point is why would the server be being hit harder in the memcache case? Shouldn't the diskcache and memcache cases be accessing the server in the same way when the filesize is larger than the cache size?Lyle will probably chime in here, but my recollection is that memcacheI'm not sure which hash you're referring to, but that doesn't sound right to
is using an array-based implementation of the cache instead of an hash;
thus searching is O(n) instead of O(log n).
me.
There were some heuristics in the cache manager for filesize > cache size,
perhaps they're only present in the disk cache code and not the mem cache code.
I suspect that if you look at network traffic, or server statistics, you'll
find that the server is being hit harder in the memcache case. No?
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --
Edward Moy
Apple Computer, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(This message is from me as a reader of this list, and not a statement
from Apple.)
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
