On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 18:42 +0200, Ivan Popov wrote:
> did you run it on the whole dataset? Then I guess you have big files.

	Yeah, actually, the 70mb number is 15x what rvmsizer suggested.  This
is for a web server cluster and while a lot of the files are
html/php/etc., there are a lot of download files that are larger.

> RVM is mapped to virtual memory, so you should have (RAM+swap) bigger
> than RVM. In reality, it will be hopefully not used fully.

	OK, so there's no penalty for overestimating -- another tidbit that
should be added to the FAQ and the docs should be updated since I
thought that the RVM size allocated was kept entirely in memory (not
just the used portion).

> that you have suitable acls and tokens, and finally you miss the internal
> bookkeeping that the servers do, which make backups a lot more efficient.

...

> They provide backup against hardware failures, but not against unintentional
> file removal ("rm -r" which you did not mean but notice only a week later...)
> or overwriting, nor against data corruption.

	OK, this makes sense, thanks.

	I'm sorry to hit you with so many questions.  Maybe I can take your
answers and make a little "Optimizing Coda 6.x" document that can
benefit other people as well.

	Is there any downside to making large (5gb, for example) client caches?
Is there any tradeoff I should know about when choosing client cache
size?  Any number I should stay under?

	Thanks again for all your help.

-- 
Patrick Walsh
eSoft Incorporated
303.444.1600 x3350
http://www.esoft.com/