On Aug 2, 2007, at 3:55 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 03:50:19PM -0600, Keith Bierman wrote: >> Posit suitable battery backed up or nonvolatile cache. It would take >> collusion (thus consent ;>) of both the client and server; > > No, it'd just mean you could respond to the commits more quickly, > because part of your "stable storage" is lower-latency. No new > protocol > required. > > Unless I'm totally misunderstanding the suggestion. >
I was suggesting eliminating the COMITs entirely if the storage device swears that there are no unprotected caches. One could imagine you'd want to reserve COMIT for really causing magnetic rotating storage involvement ;> Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Strategic Engagement Team | AIM: kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | 650-352-4432 voice+fax Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 http://blogs.sun.com/khb | <speaking for myself, not Sun*> Copyright 2007 _______________________________________________ perf-discuss mailing list perf-discuss@opensolaris.org
