On 11 Dec 2009, at 12:56, Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR) wrote:
In message <4b220a1a.8080...@pclella.cern.ch>,Rainer Toebbicke writes:
With the current "dir" package this means a chunk size of 2MB.
Assuming the
unit of transfer is still "chunksize" and you do not intentionally
fill chunks
partially you'd give up a valuable tuning parameter.
hmm... well it is a future problem. i would actually suggest 1MB
chunks
for a disk cache anyway. the directory problem is interesting.
perhaps
afs should be able to handle partial dir chunks. i would have to look
into this.
The main issue with handling partial directory chunks would be that
the dir package currently gets passed a single dcache, rather than the
vcache of the directory - so it doesn't currently have any way of
accessing other chunks beyond the one that its passed. Changing that
shouldn't be that difficult in theory - if anything causes pain, I
would imagine it will be the lock hierarchy.
If and when we do extended directories, the directory size is going to
get much larger (you're storing 3 of everything, for a start) so we'll
probably need to address this at some point.
S.
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
