(Illustration by Gaich Muramatsu)
On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 06:02:55PM +0200, Andrea Cerrito wrote: > > I compare Coda more with squid than with NFS, and hope that at some > > point it will be normal to run with a 6GB venus.cache. > > I don't understand: if I cannot make a server with > 9gb of data, how can I > have a 6gb cache? > I've set my cache to 20mb, for mail servers and webservers. Do you think > I've to increase it? My codafs are all of 9gb of data. A bigger client cache improves caching, reduces network and server load and allows for having most interesting things cached during disconnected operation. Our webserver's Coda client has a 100MB cache, my desktop has 250MB. A larger cache also has disadvantages, longer startup time, and more data to revalidate after a disconnection. Typically I try to get the cache-size between 1x and 2x the 'active working set'. But caches larger than about 200MB are sure to tickle a few problems as some cache-wide operations don't scale nicely. > And if it so, will be sufficient stopping services, stopping venus, modifing > the conf, and restart all? No, you would require a venus reinit, the larger cache can hold more files. As a result we need more RVM to store the file metadata, which is only allocated when the client is (re)initialized. > > We could modify some benchmark app that can measure the difference so > > that we can decide on the 'optimal' layout before starting the client. > > f.i. modify the postmark benchmark to compare a run in a hierarchical > > tree vs. a flat directory layout. > > Not a bad idea... at least, we can shut down venus, modify the option, and > restart it with --init to be sure the all will be in the right place. That reminds me, I still need to add something to venus to remove old containerfiles out of the venus.cache tree when we're reinitializing. JanReceived on 2001-07-19 12:15:02