Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:39:28 +0200
Subject: Re: [RT] Adaptive Caching
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
From: Stefano Mazzocchi <stefano@apache.org>
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <1E0CC447E59C974CA5C7160D2A2854EC097CEE@SJMEMXMB04.stjude.sjcrh.local>
Message-Id: <D6F682FF-C1DA-11D7-9329-000393D2CB02@apache.org>


On Tuesday, Jul 29, 2003, at 16:58 Europe/Rome, Hunsberger, Peter wrote:

> Stefano Mazzocchi <stefano@apache.org> asks:
>
>>> If you do the Google search you'll notice the references to
>> randomized
>>> paging algorithms.   I didn't chase these very far other than to
>>> determine that at least one author shows that they can
>> perform as good
>>> as conventional algorithms but not as good as the theoretical best.
>>
>> I still don't understand why you consider my approach randomized
>> because, IMO, using a random function to simulate (inferentially
>> updated) probability of behavior is not equivalent to a
>> random behavior.
>
> Ahhh, semantics, I agree.  The behavior isn't random, what I was trying
> to say: the difference in behaviors is the difference between
> deterministic and randomized functions.  Randomized functions are a 
> good
> tool for attacking NP hard problems (which paging in general is, and
> cache management is just an extension of the paging problem) since they
> can often get very close to the best answer without huge computational
> loads. I think we more or less agree that at this point the
> deterministic functions aren't going to be discovered any time soon?

Oh, totally.

--
Stefano.