| To: | state-threads@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Using with LDAP |
| From: | Dan Melomedman <dmelomed@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:14:21 -0400 |
| In-reply-to: | <3B5383DB.1DD8D030@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Mail-followup-to: | state-threads@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <000701c10de0$24b372a0$dbbfa8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010716145831.D231@xxxxxxxx> <3B535EDE.C9E3B861@xxxxxxxxxx> <20010716181417.A352@xxxxxxxx> <3B5383DB.1DD8D030@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-state-threads@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.18i |
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 05:16:27PM -0700, Gene Shekhtman wrote the following: > > Local "in-process" cache is never useless :) It's just a different level > of caching (just like bigger L2 CPU cache doesn't make L1 cache useless). > What I meant is it would be waste of RAM, though I understand there would be a performance gain. > > Also, what would be an efficient model for disk I/O helpers? > > The Flash web server used disk I/O helpers for disk-bound workloads > <http://www.cs.rice.edu/~vivek/flash99/>. I think the source code is > available free of charge for non-commerial use. I remember sending e-mail to Vivek about acquiring the source code, but never received a reply; I am not interested in selling any resulting software, but would love to take a look at the source. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Using with LDAP, Gene Shekhtman |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Your Chance (Please disregard first email, it had the wrong reply address) #329F, Roy Baker |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Using with LDAP, Gene Shekhtman |
| Next by Thread: | Your Chance #2246, Martin Roy |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |