On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Marc Dionne <marc.c.dio...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Andrew Deason <adea...@sinenomine.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:23:03 +0000 >> Simon Wilkinson <s...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> We need a better solution to cache eviction. The problem is that, >>> until very recently, we didn't have the means for one process to >>> successfully flush files written by a different process. >> >> I'm not following you; why can the cache truncate daemon not be >> triggered and waited for, like in normal cache shortage conditions? > > a) I'm pretty sure the cache truncate daemon simply skips dirty chunks > and doesn't do any writeback to the server. > b) The truncate daemon only looks at cache usage, not at dirtiness. > So we can be above the threshold where doPartialWrite will insist on > writing back data (2/3 of cache chunks dirty), but the cache is still > well below the threshold where the truncate daemon will start to > shrink (95% chunks or 90% space I think)
nothing precludes us from changing that, but yes, b) is correct and i'm pretty sure you're right about a) also. -- Derrick _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info