On Thursday 30 January 2003 07:06 pm, Tim Kientzle wrote:
| Matthew Dillon wrote:
| > Your idea of 'sequential' access cache restriction only
| >
| > works if there is just one process doing the accessing.
|
| Not necessarily. I suspect that there is
| a strong tendency to access particular files
| in particular ways. E.g., in your example of
| a download server, those files are always
| read sequentially. You can make similar assertions
| about a lot of files:
:
: For example, if a process
| started to read a 10GB file that has historically been
| accessed sequentially, you could immediately decide
| to enable read-ahead for performance, but also mark
| those pages to be released as soon as they were read by the
| process.
I think you missed Matt's point, which is well-taken:
Even if everybody accesses it sequentially, if you have 100 processes
accessing it sequentially at the *same* time, then it would be to your
benefit to leave the "old" pages around because even though *this*
process won't access it again, the *next* process very well might, if
it just happens to be reading it sequentially as well but is a little
further behind on its sequential read.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
