> > Hans Reiser <reiser@idiom.com> writes:
> >
> > > Somebody wrote a Usenix paper based on this idea, and his answer was yes, for
> > > most systems, the directories are small enough that caching all of them is
> > > effective.
> >
> > That is what Novell servers do. They keep the complete directory tree in ram.
> > I'm not sure if it is a good idea on a general purpose OS though.
>
> Probably for general purpose workstations, it is not such a great idea. But for servers (file servers, web servers handling 1000's of small files & directories, and which have loads of RAM), this can be VERY interesting...
> --
>
> Christophe Dupre
> Analyste de systemes,
> RISQ inc.
> 1801 McGill College, suite 800 Tel: (514) 840-1235, ext 6971
> Montreal, QC CANADA FAX: (514) 840-1244
>
> "Nous ne sommes pas libres de ne pas etre libres, nous sommes obliges de
> l'etre" - Fernando Savater
>
> #include <disclaimer.h>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
Whether it is for general purpose workstations or not makes no difference that I see.
Also, it is not so much that one should cache all directories in RAM as that one should separated their caching from the caching of file bodies on the grounds that directory entries are more valuable per byte than file
bodies, which means that they shoud be paged out more slowly when not recently used.
Hans
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html