Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935684AbYBUWy5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:54:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760269AbYBUWyK (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:54:10 -0500 Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37]:49591 "EHLO mx2.netapp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935497AbYBUWyG convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:54:06 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,388,1199692800"; d="scan'208";a="211603" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Subject: RE: [PATCH 00/37] Permit filesystem local caching Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:52:51 -0800 Message-ID: <01AE8AF878612047A442668306EAEB0501A36EDA@SACEXMV01.hq.netapp.com> In-reply-to: <200802211444.04986.phillips@phunq.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PATCH 00/37] Permit filesystem local caching Thread-Index: Ach022kuH0t4zO1KQ6a7QKBRN0LbbAAACUeg References: <200802201907.40406.phillips@phunq.net><20080220160557.4715.66608.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk><28196.1203605703@redhat.com> <200802211444.04986.phillips@phunq.net> From: "Muntz, Daniel" To: "Daniel Phillips" , "David Howells" Cc: "Myklebust, Trond" , , , , , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Feb 2008 22:53:49.0477 (UTC) FILETIME=[9F540550:01C874DC] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1703 Lines: 44 Well, the AFS paper that was referenced earlier was written around the time of 10bt and 100bt. Local disk caching worked well then. There should also be some papers at CITI about disk caching over slower connections, and disconnected operation (which should still be applicable today). There are still winners from local disk caching, but their numbers have been reduced. Server load reduction should be a win. I'm not sure if it's worth it from a security/manageability standpoint, but I haven't looked that closely at David's code. -Dan -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Phillips [mailto:phillips@phunq.net] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 2:44 PM To: David Howells Cc: Myklebust, Trond; nfsv4@linux-nfs.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org; linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org; selinux@tycho.nsa.gov; casey@schaufler-ca.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/37] Permit filesystem local caching Hi David, I am trying to spot the numbers that show the sweet spot for this optimization, without much success so far. Who is supposed to win big? Is this mainly about reducing the load on the server, or is the client supposed to win even with a lightly loaded server? When you say Ext3 cache vs NFS cache is the first on the server and the second on the client? Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ NFSv4 mailing list NFSv4@linux-nfs.org http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/