On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 01:26:20PM -0500, Tim Cook wrote:
> I'd go with the option of allowing both a weighted and a forced option. I
> agree though, if you do primarycache=metadata, the system should still
> attempt to cache userdata if there is additional space remaining.
I think I disagree. R
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Edward Ned Harvey <
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote:
> > From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 9:10 PM
> > > Instant Poll : Yes/No ?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > Methinks the MRU/MFU balance algorit
> From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 9:10 PM
> > Instant Poll : Yes/No ?
>
> No.
>
> Methinks the MRU/MFU balance algorithm adjustment is more fruitful.
Operating under the assumption that cache hits can be predicted, I agree
with RE. However,
On Jun 3, 2011, at 6:25 AM, Roch wrote:
>
> Edward Ned Harvey writes:
>> Based on observed behavior measuring performance of dedup, I would say, some
>> chunk of data and its associated metadata seem have approximately the same
>> "warmness" in the cache. So when the data gets evicted, the associ
Edward Ned Harvey writes:
> > If you consider the extreme bias... If the system would never give up
> > metadata in cache until all the cached data were gone... Then it would be
> > similar to the current primarycache=metadata, except that the system would
> > be willing to cache data too, wh
Edward Ned Harvey writes:
> Based on observed behavior measuring performance of dedup, I would say, some
> chunk of data and its associated metadata seem have approximately the same
> "warmness" in the cache. So when the data gets evicted, the associated
> metadata tends to be evicted too. S
