Gavin Sherry wrote: > On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Marian POPESCU wrote: > > >>Tom Lane wrote: >> >>>Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> >>> >>>>FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application >>>>is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok): >>> >>> >>>>http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040098541%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040098541&RS=DN/20040098541 >>> >>> >>>Ugh. We could hope that the patent wouldn't be granted, but I think >>>it unlikely, unless Jan is aware of prior art (like a publication >>>predating the filing date). I fear we'll have to change or remove >>>that code. >>> >>> regards, tom lane >>> >>>---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >>>TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings >>> >> >>And what about "CAR: Clock with Adaptive Replacement"? >> >>I found something here: >>http://www.cs.duke.edu/csl/usenix/04fast/tech/bansal.html >> >>Is it worth investigating? > > > Firstly, it clearly states that it is a derivation of ARC. Secondly, one > of the authors is from IBM. Implementing this algorithm will probably > cause the same problem as the implementation of ARC. > > >>best wishes, >>marian > > > Thanks, > > Gavin > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > There is also LIRS: http://www.cs.wm.edu/~sjiang/lirs.htm Interesting?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
