On 2008 Nov 14, at 7:18, Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR) wrote:
In message <5FB03AFA-8CA1-4B39-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"Brandon S. Allbe
ry KF8NH" writes:
It used to be said (back when warlord was maintaining linux-afs and
Transarc 3.4a was the main release) that the memcache was much less
efficient than the disk cache and that it was better to use disk
cache
in a ramdisk. Both have been pretty thoroughly overhauled since
then,
though.
"efficient" isnt meaningful without context. memcache does use quite
a bit of host memory. if your system is short on memory, memcache is
not for you. however, memcache outperforms diskcache is most cases
(ignoring say rereads over a link with high latency).
At the time memcache was an unoptimized linked list, IIRC, and
performance simply stank. It was worse than disk cache.
--
brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university KF8NH
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
