On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:05:49 -0800 Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> I have no objections, but I think it would be even better to just > modify the definition of -L so that it does the above instead. But > that's probably a 1.6 or later thing, so we still have a documentation > issue for 1.4 and possibly (given that we're in rc's already) for 1.6. +1 on this. Some of these could just be made defaults, though, really. Also, I've been wondering about how we handle these options... would a "use this amount of memory" option be desirable? Since so many of the performance-related options that we tell people to change are speed-memory tradeoffs, it seems like we could make some rather sensible defaults if, for example, you say "-auto 2048M", and we adjust the number of callbacks, dir buffers, etc to take up approximately that amount of memory. It's certainly not perfect due to _specific_ things needing to be larger or smaller depending on the workload, but it seems like a better knob than "small, medium, or large". -- Andrew Deason adea...@sinenomine.net _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
