On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Yunkai Zhang wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Yunkai Zhang wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 12:17 PM, John Plevyak wrote:
>>
>>> Lol, If they have optimized it by removing the LRU nature, it was perhaps
>>> overzealous, or perhaps your
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Yunkai Zhang wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 12:17 PM, John Plevyak wrote:
>
>> Lol, If they have optimized it by removing the LRU nature, it was perhaps
>> overzealous, or perhaps your workload is such that it fits within the RAM
>> cache so replacement
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 12:17 PM, John Plevyak wrote:
> Lol, If they have optimized it by removing the LRU nature, it was perhaps
> overzealous, or perhaps your workload is such that it fits within the RAM
> cache so replacement is not an issue. Without the LRU there are
> approximately the same
Lol, If they have optimized it by removing the LRU nature, it was perhaps
overzealous, or perhaps your workload is such that it fits within the RAM
cache so replacement is not an issue. Without the LRU there are
approximately the same number of buckets as objects, so replacement based
on bucket wo
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 1:57 AM, John Plevyak wrote:
> This code in ::put() implements the LRU, and as you can see, it uses the
> LRU data structure (i.e. simple list from most recently used to least):
>
> while (bytes > max_bytes) {
> RamCacheLRUEntry *ee = lru.dequeue();
> if (ee)
>
This code in ::put() implements the LRU, and as you can see, it uses the
LRU data structure (i.e. simple list from most recently used to least):
while (bytes > max_bytes) {
RamCacheLRUEntry *ee = lru.dequeue();
if (ee)
remove(ee);
else
break;
}
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 a
