I don't think I am. I think we just define "caching" differently. The "raw
transfer bandwidth" will be close to zero if no caching happens at all. I
agree with you if you define caching as data caching. But both Peter and I
are talking about metadata caching + data caching. Sure, you can throw data
caching out the window and actually gain performance. I would never dispute
that. But if you throw away metadata caching you destroy performance. Maybe
not on "simplistic" file systems like ext2 but certainly so on complex ones
like ntfs... I described already what a single read in ntfs entails if no
metadata caching happens. I doubt very much that there is a possible
scenario where not doing any metadata caching would improve performance (on
ntfs and at a guess many other fs). Even a sequential read or write from
start of file to end of file would be really killed without caching of the
logical to physical block mapping table for the inode being read/written on
ntfs...
So we aren't in disagreement I think. (-:
Best regards,
Anton
-- "I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown-- Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cantab.net> (replace at with @) Linux NTFS Maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.openprojects.net WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/