From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from munnari.oz.au ([128.250.1.21]) by archone.tamu.edu with SMTP id <45329>; Sat, 8 Feb 1992 21:07:34 -0600 Received: from cerberus.bhpese.oz (via metro) by munnari.oz.au with SunIII (5.64+1.3.1+0.50) id AA17368; Sun, 9 Feb 1992 14:07:13 +1100 (from Sm@cerberus.bhpese.oz.au) Received: from localhost by cerberus.bhpese.oz.au with ELM 2.3 PL5 id AA27425; Sun, 9 Feb 1992 14:06:09 +1100; sendmail 5.65c/Sm3.0RMSU (from Sm@cerberus.bhpese.oz.au for rc@archone.tamu.edu@munnari.oz.au) Message-Id: <199202090306.AA27425@cerberus.bhpese.oz.au> From: Scott Merrilees Subject: Re: path caching To: rc@archone.tamu.edu (The rc Mailing List) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1992 08:06:08 -0600 In-Reply-To: <92Feb8.122002est.2718@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu>; from "Chris Siebenmann" at Feb 8, 92 11:19 am X-Face: '82~l%BnDBWVn])DV^cl_%bla$T]kNbRN&]>v{ED9[" How many times the path cache 'hit' is uninteresting; the > performance number wanted is how much time it saved. If > you can show a definite useful time saving in a typical > shell-script/user's session/whatever it might be interesting; > otherwise, it's just gratuitous complexity. > - cks Defining a typical shell-script/user's session/whatever is rather difficult, I'm in the just about to start a trial period of two weeks of cache use, followed by two weeks of non-cache use. I'll let you know the results, but I would think that the results would vary greatly with the composition of the path, eg number of components, size of directories, whether components are network accessed, order of path, ram disc based cache etc. Sm -- Scott Merrilees, BHP Information Technology, Newcastle, Australia Internet: Sm@bhpese.oz.au Phone: +61 49 40 2132 Fax: ... 2165