Linux tmpfs (Was: [OpenAFS] Solaris 10u6: ZFS cache?)
Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:14:35 +0200
Yes, thanks. That's what I meant.
From: Jeffrey Altman [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:43 PM
To: Christof Hanke
Subject: Re: Linux tmpfs (Was: [OpenAFS] Solaris 10u6: ZFS cache?)
Christof Hanke wrote:
> While talking about cache-performance (not that I know how they really wo=
> Would it be beneficial to have a separate Meta-data cache from a File-dat=
> I'm thinking of situations where the the performance is poor (long distan=
> It would me frustrate a lot, if I had to wait, say 10 min, for an "ls" an=
d after downloading a file bigger than my cache another "ls" would
> take the same time.
> So, would it make sense to cache the stat() information in a separate cac=
> Just thinking loud here.
in the AFS cache manager, volume info, vnode meta data, and
file/directory data are stored in separate classes of objects.
I think you are requesting that an arbitrary percentage of the file/dir
data cache be reserved for directory data vs file data. The 1.5 tree
has an implementation of split cache management for segmenting
read/write vs read/only data. Extending that to support other
classifications should not be hard.
Send requests or patches that implement features to email@example.com=