On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 12:43:42PM -0400, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > On Friday, May 13, 2005 09:43:05 AM +0200 Niklas Edmundsson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I have a faint memory of the memcache only being able to store > >cachesize/chunksize number of files even if the files are much smaller > >than chunksize, ie that the memcache is an array of chunksize blocks. If > >this is correct, then you should probably reduce the chunksize when doing > >small-sized-memcache to be able to fit enough files. > > You bring up an important point which I failed to mention. The proposals I > made regarding chunkSize, cacheFiles, and dCacheSize are all relevant only > when using disk cache. The memory cache architecture works somewhat > differently; memcache chunks are fixed-size and take up the same amount of > storage regardless of how "full" they are. So, the cache can store only > cachesize/chunksize chunks. > > As you suggested, this argues for much smaller chunks than would be used > for a disk cache, and in fact the default chunkSize for memcache is only 13 > (8K). I'm not suggesting changing this default, though of course folks who > think they can spare the memory could choose to raise it (and cacheBlocks) > an order of magnitude or two.
When I was messing around trying to get anything close to 10% of gigabit wire speeds, I found the best performance with a 100mb memcache, and chunkSize set to either 18 or 20. Is there a way to set the network transfer size independent from the chunk size, or are these somewhat inextricably linked? _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
