>
> On 01-Nov-96 alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
> >> The problems described above are easily solved by allowing the
> >> proc routines to write out all their data in one shot, and
> >> caching that data for the user programs.
> >
> >Not always. The ip routing tables could be 40,000 routes or more. Which at
> >80 bytes a route is 3.2Mb of data to cache !
> >
> >Alan
>
> Is that really a problem? Isn't the trade-off worth the RAM
> requirements? I knew that this would be brought up when I
> decided that caching the data was necessary, but it is a
> reasonable approach. If you want the data pulled out of
> proc to be consistent, atomicity is necessary.
>
> Besides, the data is cached only while the file is held open.
> When the file is closed, all that memory is freed. 3.2MB is
> a pitance today. Anyone that is using 40K routes can afford
> the US$12 for another 4MB.
Does your process handle the case where the requesting program fails to
close the file?
John Alvord