On 4/13/05, Matt Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Apr 13, 2005, at 6:53 AM, Lars Schimmer wrote: > > Another question I've got is about cache-size: > > I read somewhere to set cache size to roughly 1 GB on disk cache. Is > > it a real > > nice one to set such a big cache at normal work or is it more like a > > showstopper > > and 50-100 MB Cache is better? > > My experience is that you want your client cache to be at least as > large as the largest files you are using. Performance on files that > won't fit entirely in the cache is terrible. I use a 2GB cache on my > system since my fileservers currently have a 2GB file size limit.
Setting cache size is a bit of a black art. You *really* need to take into account what your machine is doing and how many users are on it. A machine that's generally used for reading email for lots of users is not going to have the same requirement as a machine that does calculations of huge datasets. If you have a machine that is mostly used for lots of small files and you give it a 2G file limit because "someone is using 2G files there for some other project" you are mostly going to be very sad. The cache design will make hunting through a 2G cache for tiny files to expire is going to slow things down considerably. Remember also: the speed of the cache is slow because of the way it is structured, but the good side of the way it's done is that there's a lot of safety and sanity checking to make sure that both the users don't get crap and that garbage isn't written back to the fileservers. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info