RE: MemPools rewrite

> Alex Rousskov wrote:
>
> > IMHO, you are trying to solve the right problem
> with the wrong
> > tools: If you are lucky, implementing complex and tricky
> MemPools will
> > save some 32-48 bytes per object while eliminating memory-resident
> > StoreEntry and related objects (so that *all* per-object
> info except,
> > maybe, disk "address" is stored on disk until needed) will
> address the
> > root of the problem. Thus, IMO, your solution is a complex temporary
> > workaround until the "right thing" can be done.
>
> And there currently is at least one implementation using "the right
> approach", based on a variant of the reiserfs filesystem on Linux. In
> there the whole cache maintenance is moved to the file system. Squid
> only stuffs content there and retreives objects as needed.

I sincerely hope that this will soon see the light.
Hans Reiser promised that the source would be released,
the question now is: when? I am quite interested in this
development thread.

-- 
	/kinkie