News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Freqfs: In-memory filesystem cache for Rust. Parent comment

Re:Freqfs: In-memory filesystem cache for Rust by cornstalks on Friday October 01, 2021 @03:32PM (#28722491)
I think GP's point is that the OS usually has a file system cache in RAM.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Freqfs: In-memory filesystem cache for Rust by topspin on Friday October 01, 2021 @04:17PM (#28722976)
I think the P's point, supported by evidence, is that the OS cache is not optimal for all use cases.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Freqfs: In-memory filesystem cache for Rust by edoceo on Friday October 01, 2021 @04:53PM (#28723292)
No cache is optimal for all use cases. That's an impossible goal.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Freqfs: In-memory filesystem cache for Rust by topspin on Friday October 01, 2021 @05:28PM (#28723579)
Thus why things like Freqfs exist and we don't always "let the OS take care of this."
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Freqfs: In-memory filesystem cache for Rust by edoceo on Friday October 01, 2021 @06:20PM (#28724004)
Yea friend, we're in violent agreement :)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Freqfs: In-memory filesystem cache for Rust by fsckboy on Friday October 01, 2021 @09:01PM (#28725063)
the actual question is whether the person making the choice is up to the task of measuring/proving that their manual caching is optimal for their use case. A lot of the time the answer is simply "no". For example, the people who say "just buy enough RAM and turn virtual memory off" for the most part do not understand the implications of what they are talking about.
[ Parent | on HN ]