Re: is cache-only-prefixes an nnpfs limitation?
Tomas Olsson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.file-systems.arla.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Adam Megacz <[email protected]> writes: > [email protected] (Niels Möller) writes: > > One possibly naive idea: > > ... > > Yeah, I was imagining something similar. Would this work? > I think so, it's a good idea. It certainly does help arlad's case a lot. One would still need to keep track of installed blocks in nnpfs, but the LRU and the block-to-nnpfs_node mapping could be dropped. The big question is if it's worth relaying all accesses to arlad. /t