On 2 Feb 2001, at 3:43, Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au> wrote:
> > say:
> > cache_dir ufs /var/cache1 100 16 256
> > cache_dir fifofs /var/cache2 100 16 256
> >
> > cache_dir_conf /var/cache1 maxfile: -1 minfile: -1
> > cache_dir_conf /var/cache2 maxfile: 16K minfile: 512 acl: some_regex ..
> >
> > this would also allow us more possibilities in the future.
> > for eg. for some FS'es L1/L2 setup don't have any meaning
>
> Perhaps. But I think the -1 change is going to be a lot simpler than
> requiring everyone to add a cache_dir_conf line later on.
typical user will never need to tune that "-1" from default. Why force
them to change config file for upgrade, and back if downgrade?
Also, if we need maxfilesize, then probably in very near future we'd want
minfilesize as well. Also, we might want to specify replacement policy
per FS, diskload limits, ACL's, etc. we'd need to add such option
anyway, then why brake existing one now?
> Perhaps stuff like this requires a nested parser? :-)
not sure what you mean, but don't we have a parser for options
already (cache_peer [options] )?
------------------------------------
Andres Kroonmaa <andre@online.ee>
Delfi Online
Tel: 6501 731, Fax: 6501 708
Pärnu mnt. 158, Tallinn,
11317 Estonia
Received on Thu Feb 01 2001 - 13:07:52 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:13:28 MST