On Tuesday 26 February 2008 06:33, David Howells wrote:
Suppose one were to take a mundane approach to the persistent cache
problem instead of layering filesystems. What you would do then is
change NFS's -write_page and variants to fiddle the persistent
cache
It is a requirement laid
On Monday 25 February 2008 15:19, David Howells wrote:
So I guess there's a problem in cachefiles's efficiency - possibly due
to the fact that it tries to be fully asynchronous.
OK, not just my imagination, and it makes me feel better about the patch
set because efficiency bugs are fixable
Hi David,
I am trying to spot the numbers that show the sweet spot for this
optimization, without much success so far.
Who is supposed to win big? Is this mainly about reducing the load on
the server, or is the client supposed to win even with a lightly loaded
server?
When you say Ext3
On Thursday 21 February 2008 16:07, David Howells wrote:
The way the client works is like this:
Thanks for the excellent ascii art, that cleared up the confusion right
away.
What are you trying to do exactly? Are you actually playing with it, or just
looking at the numbers I've produced?
Hi David,
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 08:05, David Howells wrote:
These patches add local caching for network filesystems such as NFS.
Have you got before/after benchmark results?
Regards,
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
linux-security-module in
the body
