On Thu 07 May 2015 04:55:21 PM CEST, Eric Blake wrote:
>> /* Give the table some hits for the start so that it won't be replaced
>> * immediately. The number 32 is completely arbitrary. */
>> -c->entries[i].cache_hits = 32;
>> c->entries[i].offset = offset;
>
> The comment is n
On 05/06/2015 07:39 AM, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> The current algorithm to evict entries from the cache gives always
> preference to those in the lowest positions. As the size of the cache
> increases, the chances of the later elements of being removed decrease
> exponentially.
>
> In a scenario wit
The current algorithm to evict entries from the cache gives always
preference to those in the lowest positions. As the size of the cache
increases, the chances of the later elements of being removed decrease
exponentially.
In a scenario with random I/O and lots of cache misses, entries in
position
