Hi, > > >> It needs to be clearified, if restored items should be bubbled > > >> up to higher storages. > > > > > > Why wouldn't we want that? > > > > Because it costs time again. Imagine a 4 level stack, where file > > system is the lowest and largest one. Each time an item would be > > restored from the there, it would be placed in 3 higher storages > > again. Not sure if we want this, since it slows down the read > > process. > > I think this is one of the major things why you'd want a stacked > cache... so yes, I definitely think it should be stored in higher > storages. Perhaps we can add an option to restore() to *not* do that, > but I do want the general case to store it in the higher caches.
I think, it shouldn't be the one or the other way - I think, it depends on the meta data of the item. If the frequency is the main measurement, you should consider a (dynamically calculated) minium frequency for an item to be stored in the fastest cache. In the next level of the cache, the requirement is easier to fullfil and so on... When requesting an item from hard disk, you need to look, if and how far the item should bubble up. (Of course in a LRU case, this results in always bubbling up.) Thomas -- Components mailing list Components@lists.ez.no http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components
