From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935383AbYBUWpb (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:45:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762554AbYBUWpD (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:45:03 -0500 Received: from phunq.net ([64.81.85.152]:59815 "EHLO moonbase.phunq.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753424AbYBUWpA (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:45:00 -0500 From: Daniel Phillips To: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/37] Permit filesystem local caching Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:44:04 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com, chuck.lever@oracle.com, casey@schaufler-ca.com, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org References: <200802201907.40406.phillips@phunq.net> <20080220160557.4715.66608.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <28196.1203605703@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <28196.1203605703@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200802211444.04986.phillips@phunq.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi David, I am trying to spot the numbers that show the sweet spot for this optimization, without much success so far. Who is supposed to win big? Is this mainly about reducing the load on the server, or is the client supposed to win even with a lightly loaded server? When you say Ext3 cache vs NFS cache is the first on the server and the second on the client? Regards, Daniel