On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 11:42:14 -0800 Julian Elischer <julian_at_elischer.org> wrote: [buf-junta work] > >Do you have an outline where this heads to and why? > > > > when systems were smaller the number of cached bufs was small, and bufs > represented 'buffers' likely to used soon fo rIO and IO requests were > simple, > it made sence to combine the IO request and the storage descriptor (buf). > > Since then, storage is done via the vm system, IO requests have gotten > bigger, > and the number of IO requests needed at any time has remained small. it > makes less > sense to have an IO request with every buf storage descriptor. You haven't said it explicitly, but I assume there are cases where an IO request doesn't need a buf storage descriptor. Is this correct? I was asking for something like an annotated roadmap. Something like "After X will be done, we need to look at Y, X is an infrastructure change for Y and we want Y because it allows us to do Z." This would allow those who are reading cvs-all to see where we are standing and where we are heading (and to applaud when we reach milestones). Bye, Alexander. -- The best things in life are free, but the expensive ones are still worth a look. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander _at_ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7Received on Sat Nov 06 2004 - 11:06:08 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:21 UTC