Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:01:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Rick Macklem <rick@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca>
Message-Id: <200802221601.LAA81388@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca>
To: Dan.Muntz@netapp.com
Subject: RE: [PATCH 00/37] Permit filesystem local caching
Cc: casey@schaufler-ca.com, dhowells@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
       nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, phillips@phunq.net, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov,
       Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1102
Lines: 20

> 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.

One area that you might want to look at is WAN performance. When RPC RTT
goes up, ordinary NFS performance goes down. This tends to get overlooked
by the machine room folks. (There are several tools out there that can
introduce delay in an IP packet stream and emulate WAN RTTs.)

Just a thought, rick
--
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/