Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: error (idunn.apache.osuosl.org: domain stdlib.net from
 82.195.155.60 cause and error)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:56:15 +0100
From: Colm MacCarthaigh <colm@stdlib.net>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mod_disk_cache working LFS (filecopy)
Message-ID: <20060926095615.GA16223@dochas.stdlib.net>
Reply-To: colm@stdlib.net
References: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0609261030000.14519@kleopatra.acc.umu.se>
 <4518F6C3.4020207@beamartyr.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <4518F6C3.4020207@beamartyr.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 12:45:39PM +0300, Issac Goldstand wrote:
> Forgive me for missing the obvious, but why not just use mod_file_cache 
> for this? 
> I recall you mentioning that your use of mod_cache was for locally 
> caching very large remote files, so don't see how this would help that 
> in any case since the file doesn't exist locally when being stored, and 
> if the file is otherwise known to be on the file system, there's no 
> reason to keep it in mod_disk_cache's cache area (in any case, it 
> wouldn't improve performance - only mod_file_cache would).  So what am I 
> missing?

There are plenty of instances in which moving it to a cache area may
well improve performance. For example if you have several terabytes of
cheap storage, but a nice U360 RAID-0 as a cache area. Of course the
move will end up being a byte by byte copy anyway, since you can't just
re-link the inode accross filesystems, but still.

-- 
Colm MacC�rthaigh                        Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net