On 15 Jun 2001 11:07:20 +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> The "resistance to scanning" seemed interesting, maybe one-time
> activities like a "find" run or big cat/dd will have less impact with
> this.
It should also be good for streaming file use. It gives a natural way
of detecting when you should
Hello,
please CC: replies to me, since I'm not subscribed to the list.
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:50:33 -0300 (BRST)
Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Ivan Schreter wrote:
>> In 2Q, when a page is present in LRU queue, you move it to the front of
>> [...]
> This descri
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Ivan Schreter wrote:
> In 2Q, when a page is present in LRU queue, you move it to the front of
> LRU queue as usual. Otherwise, if it is in memory, it must be in A1 queue
> (the FIFO one), so you DON'T do anything. When the page is NOT in memory,
> you load it conditionally t
Hello,
I'm not subscribed to list, so please replies CC: to me
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:20:52 -0400 (EDT)
John Clemens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any way for you to measure the relative computational overhead
> required for the two algorithms? the benefit of the higher hit rate may
> b
Hello,
Please CC: replies to me, since I am not subscribed.
>> http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/63909.html
> The "resistance to scanning" seemed interesting, maybe one-time
> activities like a "find" run or big cat/dd will have less impact with
> this.
Exactly. But not only that.
I have mad
Ivan Schreter wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm working on some hi-speed DB projects under Linux and I was researching
> various buffer-replacement algorithms. I found 2Q buffer replacement policy at
>
> http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/63909.html
>
> Maybe it would be interesting to use it instead
6 matches
Mail list logo
