[2.1.110] Something is strange with the dir. cache

Aaron Tiensivu (tiensivu@pilot.msu.edu)
Sat, 25 Jul 1998 11:37:35 -0400

I run a fairly dinky standard system.. it's got 20MB of memory and is mainly
used for e-mail/ip masq./experiments/kernel hacking. Using my cache statistics
patch has raised a few eyebrows because of how poorly the dircache seems to
be doing lately.. earlier versions had a much better cache hit rate..

My hard drive isn't fragmented and I've just been doing standard things..
compiling, e-mail, CVS stuff, etc.

Here's the results from ~24hrs worth of work:

bufcache 503519 173176
dircache 2266347 6611288
fatcache 0 0
smbcache 0 0

First number is the number of 'hits' in the cache were found and 'misses' is
the second number. Earlier 2.1.x kernels would usually have those numbers
reversed.. a LOT more hits than misses.. this may explain the disappointing
'find' results that 2.1.10x kernels have been reported to have.

Something to ponder.. the fat cache and smb cache are both empty because
this is a dinky dedicated box.. don't no need stinkin' fat :)

Which is worse, ignorance or apathy? Who knows? Who cares?
IBM: It may be slow, but at least it's expensive.
Mir is the Russian word for 'duck-tape' - Dennis Miller
You've won Solitaire! For your high score to register, Win95 must be restarted.

- 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