Am 13.08.2018 um 17:16 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: > On 2018-08-13 08:09, Leonid Bloch wrote: > > On August 13, 2018 4:39:35 AM EEST, Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> wrote: > > [...] > > >> Ideally we'd probably want a soft and a hard cache limit, but I don't > >> know... > >> > >> (Like, a soft cache limit of 1 MB with a CCI of 10 min, and a hard > >> cache > >> limit of 32 MB with a CCI of 1 min by default. So whenever your cache > >> uses more than 1 MB of RAM, your CCI is 1 min, and whenever it's below, > >> your CCI is 10 min.) > > > > Max, thanks for your insight. Indeed some good points. > > Considering this, I'm thinking to set the limit to 16 MB, and the CCI to 5 > > min. What do you think? > > I think it's good for a preliminary solution, and then later increase > the limit with the soft and hard limits. > > OTOH, if we implement the soft/hard limits, it doesn't really matter > what default you choose now... > > > Modern Windows installations should gain performance from being able to > > random I/O to >8 GB chunks, and data processing tasks where each data set > > is 8+ GB for sure do (did benchmarks). And the maximum is only ever used if > > (a) the image is large enough and (b) it is indeed used. > > While taking 256 GB images as the "limit" can be considered an overshoot, > > 128 GB is quite reasonable, I think. > > > > Your idea with "soft" and "hard" limits is great! I'm tempted to implement > > this. Say 4 MB with 10 min., and 16 MB with 5 min? > > 32 MB and 2 or 3 min? :-) > > If you do that, I'm fine with a plain default of 32 MB for now.
I would be happy with that. Kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
