3 ms·
> If applications leveraged files instead of anonymous memory to implement their caches, then the system’s file buffer cache would do the right thing I've alwa
by rakoo 5y ago
> If applications leveraged files instead of anonymous memory to implement their caches, then the system’s file buffer cache would do the right thing
I've always thought this should be the standard way of doing caching. It's also explained at length in this article by the author of Varnish: https://varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/notes.html https://varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/notes.html. Contrary to what TFA is saying, performance under "normal" use would be the same: the data is in RAM. It doesn't change that it is backed by a file or not.
- jmmv 5y agoOh thanks. I wasn't aware of that article nor that Varnish did exactly this :) Updated the text of my post to incorporate it. And when I said performance would suffer, I was not implying it'd be terrible. I was trying to say that the extra open/close system calls are overhead that you don't directly pay with direct memory accesses. But... the overall impact of those on system performance would likely be invisible. Also clarified this.