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@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 2:44 PM To: David Howells Cc: Myklebust, Trond; nfsv4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-security-module@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
