Re: Linux max on shared buffers?
От | Curt Sampson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Linux max on shared buffers? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.NEB.4.44.0207231114130.497-100000@angelic.cynic.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Linux max on shared buffers? (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Jan Wieck wrote: > I have some more wrinkles to iron out as well. We can hold blocks of > hundreds of different files in our buffer cache without the need to keep > an open file descriptor... As you can with mmap as well. The mapping remains after the file descriptor is closed. > In a complicated schema where you cannot keep all files open anymore... You can keep just as many files open when you use mmap as you can with the current scheme. The limit is the number of file descriptors you have available. > ...access to your kernel buffered blocks requires open(), mmap(), munmap() > and close() then? Four system calls to get access to a cached block > where we get away with a TAS today? If you leave the block mapped, you do not need to do any of that. Your limit on the number of mapped blocks is basically just the limit on address space. So it would not be unreasonable to have your "cache" of mappings be, say, a gigabyte in size. On systems which normally allocate less shared memory than that, this would mean you would actually make fewer syscalls than you would with shared memory. cjs -- Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: