Re: [MERGE] 1/2: Populate cache_mem on disk hits

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> lör 2009-08-15 klockan 13:26 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
>
>> Now closed it, but I wonder, does this close or simply reduce the impact
>> of bug #7?
>
> Reduces it sligthly as a sideeffect, but I would not account for it..
>
>> Am I right in thinking the in-memory copy gets demoted at some later
>> point back to the disk store by saving the memory copy? or is the memory
>> copy dropped at that point and the original disk copy used?
>
>
> dropped
>

Hmm, I'm thinking there should not be too much functional change to make
this fix Bug-7 in a slightly better way than squid-2 did.

What if:
   promoted objects had their disk copy dropped when the memory copy
changes? that gets halfway there. if nothing else it will make Squid
fetch a clean new copy next time after the memory copy dies.

   if changed memory-promoted objects could get 'demoted' to a new disk
filenumber that would solve bug-7 fully for the promotable objects.

   side case would be the ones that don't get promoted. they are still
screwed over for now.

Of have I got the disk/memory interaction overview completely screwed in
my head?

Amos

-- 
Please be using
   Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE6 or 3.0.STABLE18
   Current Beta Squid 3.1.0.13