[RC5] Cache buffers in ram suggestion.
james at angelos.ftech.co.uk
Fri Aug 30 11:29:37 EDT 2002
Quoting dan carter <hedonist at win.co.nz>:
> It would be nice if the client could load several hours worth of buffers
> into ram to work on before touching the disc to put them in the out
> buffer and load up more.
This is a great suggestion, but would have to be treated carefully for users who
feed multiple clients off a single set of buffers. For example I have two
machines, one configured for normal operation and lurk-mode. The second machine
uses both it's own local buffers and remote buffers which are on a network share
on the second laptop. The second laptop does not try to connect to the proxies
to refresh it's packets at all.
If the buffers were cached into RAM on the first machine, then when the second
machine connects it would copy the blocks from the remote buffers down to it's
own and then proceed to cache them itself. It's not too difficult to imagine
this ending up with them both caching the same blocks and basically racing to
finish them (unfortunately machine one is nearly twice as fast as machine two
and would always win making the contribution of machine two worthless).
For this too work (and I'm not poo-poo'ing it at all, I think it's a great
suggestion), it would either have to be an option that defaulted to disabled
(with plenty of warnings in the config screen) or the act of caching would
somehow mark the blocks that were being cached or even move them into a
buff.cached file leaving the buff.in file free for other clients to take from.
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
More information about the rc5