On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Marian POPESCU wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application > >>is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok): > > > > > >>http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040098541%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040098541&RS=DN/20040098541 > > > > > > Ugh. We could hope that the patent wouldn't be granted, but I think > > it unlikely, unless Jan is aware of prior art (like a publication > > predating the filing date). I fear we'll have to change or remove > > that code. > > > > regards, tom lane > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > > > And what about "CAR: Clock with Adaptive Replacement"? > > I found something here: > http://www.cs.duke.edu/csl/usenix/04fast/tech/bansal.html > > Is it worth investigating?
Firstly, it clearly states that it is a derivation of ARC. Secondly, one of the authors is from IBM. Implementing this algorithm will probably cause the same problem as the implementation of ARC. > > best wishes, > marian Thanks, Gavin ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
