In a message of 10-Apr-00 David Gerber wrote:
>> Yes, with respect to this I was very glad for VNG 2.95. I was able to
>> maintain the size of the cache pretty precisely. Recently I noticed that
>> my cache in a very short time had increased from 220 MB to 381 MB -- a
>> bit scary, because I really don't know what can have caused this great
>> increase. It had taken 5-6 months to build the 220 MB cache. Well, I
>> deleted most of it, so I got below the 256 MB limit.
> This bug has been fixed in 3.1 and you get a new Cache Pruner as a bonus.
As long as V� trims it nicely at 256 MB, I am more than satisfied :)))
But I did noticed the Cache Pruner. It reports "3237k used" and that is not
very much i accordance with the 200.719.454 bytes size of my cache. Why?
When I noticed that my cache had reached 381 MB, I trimmed it simply by
generating a bunch of delete commands like.
list V3-Cache/#?/#? lformat "delete %f" upto 31-dec-99 >RAM:DeleteCache
or something like that. And then executed the deleted batch file. This removed
around 200 megs, and brought the cache size down to around 180 MB. Would
that totally have ruined Voyager's understanding of the cache size?
And a minor thing -- in my opinion the Cache Pruner window needs a "Cancel"
button.
Uffe Holst
____________________________________________________________
Voyager Mailing List - Info & Archive: http://www.vapor.com/
For Listserver Help: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "HELP"
To Unsubscribe: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "UNSUBSCRIBE"
