RE: [PATCH 00/37] Permit filesystem local caching

[Muntz, Daniel]

Well, the AFS paper that was referenced earlier was written around the
time of 10bt and 100bt.  Local disk caching worked well then.  There
should also be some papers at CITI about disk caching over slower
connections, and disconnected operation (which should still be
applicable today).  There are still winners from local disk caching, but
their numbers have been reduced.  Server load reduction should be a win.
I'm not sure if it's worth it from a security/manageability standpoint,
but I haven't looked that closely at David's code.

  -Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Phillips [mailto:phillips@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 2:44 PM
To: David Howells
Cc: Myklebust, Trond; nfsv4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-security-module@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/37] Permit filesystem local caching

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 cache vs NFS cache is the first on the server and the
second on the client?

Regards,

Daniel
_______________________________________________
NFSv4 mailing list
NFSv4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/