Re: QTCTL?

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 8:44 pm, erik quanstrom wrote:
>>  Sure - however, there is a case for loose caches as well. For example,
>>  lots of remote file data is essentially read-only, or at the very
>>  worst its updated very infrequently.  Brucee had
>
> i might be speaking out of school.  but i worry about the qualifiers
> "essentially" and "very infrequently".  they tend not to scale.
>
> what about drawing a sharp line?  these mounts are static and
> cachable.  these are not and need coherency.

Yes - sessionfs satisfied the first case, items falling into the second 
class were served from a normal 9p server (w/no cache).

>
>  perhaps the
> data that needs cache coherency doesn't need full file sematics.
>

I think they are two separate issues.

    -eric