From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:15:08 -0500
Subject: Re: [9fans] QTCTL?
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <3794d4013428e32e3c22d0aad3deffb3@quanstro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <3794d4013428e32e3c22d0aad3deffb3@quanstro.net>
From: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <1193883355.36D0DE6@fd5.dngr.org>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e299c5ec-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025


On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 8:44 pm, erik quanstrom wrote:
>>  Sure - however, there is a case for loose caches as well. For example,
>>  lots of remote file data is essentially read-only, or at the very
>>  worst its updated very infrequently.  Brucee had
>
> i might be speaking out of school.  but i worry about the qualifiers
> "essentially" and "very infrequently".  they tend not to scale.
>
> what about drawing a sharp line?  these mounts are static and
> cachable.  these are not and need coherency.

Yes - sessionfs satisfied the first case, items falling into the second 
class were served from a normal 9p server (w/no cache).

>
>  perhaps the
> data that needs cache coherency doesn't need full file sematics.
>

I think they are two separate issues.

    -eric