From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: regarding size limit of local client cache Date: 11 Mar 2003 23:14:07 +0100 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: References: <20030311211231.55780.qmail@web11407.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Lever, Charles" , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16] ident=7411) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 18ss0n-0007h4-00 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:14:17 -0800 To: Abhishek Rai In-Reply-To: <20030311211231.55780.qmail@web11407.mail.yahoo.com> Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: >>>>> " " == Abhishek Rai writes: > But in any case, I have a large swap partition(500 MB). So why > doesn't the NFS client make use of the swap space to enlarge > its available page cache space rather than restricting its page > cache usage to 8192 -4k pages and thus paying the penalty of a > very high numbe of on the wire reads.(As i mentioned before, > there is negligible load on the client apart from the NFS) There is no guarantee that swap will be faster than NFS. Think GigE or faster... In any case, this is an area that in entirely under the control of the VM. NFS has no say whatsoever in what policy should be applied w.r.t. caching. Cheers, Trond ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by:Crypto Challenge is now open! Get cracking and register here for some mind boggling fun and the chance of winning an Apple iPod: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0031en _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs