Re: Dealing with store_table shared by ufs-based cache_dirs

From: Kinkie <gkinkie_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:20:29 +0200

Hi,
I vote for KISS.
We want to get rid of the store_table eventually, why add complexity
that we'll want to remove soon anyway?
Also, we're probably talking about a few hundred cpu cycles per
request, O(n) with the number of cache_dirs.

-- 
    /kinkie

Received on Wed Oct 17 2012 - 17:20:35 MDT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Amos Jeffries: "Re: Large Rock Store"
Previous message: Alex Rousskov: "Dealing with store_table shared by ufs-based cache_dirs"
In reply to: Alex Rousskov: "Dealing with store_table shared by ufs-based cache_dirs"
Next in thread: Amos Jeffries: "Re: Large Rock Store"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Oct 18 2012 - 12:00:06 MDT