On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 10:23:25AM -0500, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 04:18:05PM +0100, Philip Dodd wrote: > > One of the things I first noticed when running the Hurd (particularly > > because it was running with an old and very noisy HD) was the incredible > > amount of disk activity compared with exactly the same box running any other > > OS. This is of course an entirely subjective expression of opinion, and > > should of course be taken as such :) > > > > Well, of course we know about this problem in general. And trust me > that it has been worse two years ago :) Linux has a very superb > caching for the filesystem, while we have no equivalent caching (we just > have the pager). However, I was wondering about whether this particular > sequence of commands requires disk activity. Maybe it's just a bug > somewhere that can be fixed. > > Implementing a proper caching strategy would be a very good task, but it > is not easy.
I think we should go for a 'good enough' caching strategy, rather than an 'optimal' caching strategy. Simply caching 4 megs of the most-recently-used pages would probably increase peformance dramatically for most tasks, and I doubt it'd harm any others (unless it doesn't leave enough memory free to satisfy the pager.) -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
