Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
We won't know unless we can collect and analyze some data. Until we do
that, repeatedly making changes to the autotuning algorithm isn't going
to make things better; it's just going to make it unpredictable.
So, let's hear from people who are actually using large caches [...]
[...] I'd be very interested to see how either of these numbers
varies with cache size, working set size, average file size, or "site
size", whatever that means....
I wholeheartedly agree. However, I don't think you're going to get much
response to this request for data. Most folks don't even know whether
they qualify as "people who are actually using large caches".
Furthermore, everybody who comes up with some numbers to pass on to you
are going to invent their own methods of gathering that data based on
their individual misunderstanding of the questions.
OTOH, if you could post a script and say "everybody, please run this and
send me the results" (presumably the results would be cut-n-paste
worthy) then you would probably get higher participation and have some
consistency across the results. You'd also get some idea -- at least
across the participants -- of what different cache configurations are
actually in use.
I understand that that's even more work for you up front, but if you
really want the data...
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 919-962-5273 http://www.unc.edu/~utoddl /
/ In democracy it's your vote that counts; /
/ In feudalism it's your count that votes. /
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
