On Tuesday, Jul 29, 2003, at 16:58 Europe/Rome, Hunsberger, Peter wrote:


Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asks:

If you do the Google search you'll notice the references to
randomized
paging algorithms.   I didn't chase these very far other than to
determine that at least one author shows that they can
perform as good
as conventional algorithms but not as good as the theoretical best.

I still don't understand why you consider my approach randomized because, IMO, using a random function to simulate (inferentially updated) probability of behavior is not equivalent to a random behavior.

Ahhh, semantics, I agree. The behavior isn't random, what I was trying
to say: the difference in behaviors is the difference between
deterministic and randomized functions. Randomized functions are a good
tool for attacking NP hard problems (which paging in general is, and
cache management is just an extension of the paging problem) since they
can often get very close to the best answer without huge computational
loads. I think we more or less agree that at this point the
deterministic functions aren't going to be discovered any time soon?

Oh, totally.


--
Stefano.



Reply via email to