From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3794d4013428e32e3c22d0aad3deffb3@quanstro.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] QTCTL?
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:44:16 -0400
In-Reply-To: <a4e6962a0710311825i191f208cmd7bfc3354190513c@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e290f44e-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

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

- erik