Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2778D932D for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:27:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 64536 invoked by uid 500); 21 Feb 2012 13:27:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 64506 invoked by uid 500); 21 Feb 2012 13:27:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 64497 invoked by uid 99); 21 Feb 2012 13:27:16 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:27:16 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of yuzhihong@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.41 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.41] (HELO mail-qw0-f41.google.com) (209.85.216.41) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:27:08 +0000 Received: by qadz32 with SMTP id z32so4795513qad.14 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:26:47 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of yuzhihong@gmail.com designates 10.229.76.149 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.229.76.149; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of yuzhihong@gmail.com designates 10.229.76.149 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=yuzhihong@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=yuzhihong@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.229.76.149]) by 10.229.76.149 with SMTP id c21mr19460998qck.5.1329830807935 (num_hops = 1); Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:26:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:content-type:x-mailer:message-id:date:to :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=VOmMeb46SI34iSdye5uNzhgft6nfPQWhn3/14TnTa5g=; b=N8dI59Tdx7HlUyr2KQcMZAs2322UVdy8XQmxFE+UO0mzJnNsskuyQe4yXJ1S8SzroB e1yFywAwRsVQcOoSqGwtyR8p5X5giHKn2NQzFpcEd8q+GHJMHmlzF5i7mQuGk+2U/cCK bXTdILoVa/u3uI0aYYsYohvINt3pUOV5riobY= Received: by 10.229.76.149 with SMTP id c21mr16432886qck.5.1329830807861; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:26:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.245.97.200] (112.sub-174-253-22.myvzw.com. [174.253.22.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j17sm58070705qaj.9.2012.02.21.05.26.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:26:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: LIRS cache as an alternative to LRU cache From: yuzhihong@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9A405) Message-Id: <5CBFD67D-D171-4DFA-9921-5E217C759B49@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:26:42 -0600 To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Hi, Shall we experiment with low inter-reference recency set replacement policy t= o see if block cache becomes more effective ? Cheers