From 3e21422d92edc11ed0061031e0ff37a9c1ebcd04 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ben Pfaff Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:58:10 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Don't require distinguishing data and metadata for caching. Another suggestion for implementation order. From Godmar. --- doc/filesys.texi | 5 ++++- ta-advice/HW4 | 3 +-- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/filesys.texi b/doc/filesys.texi index f245daa..9ed836a 100644 --- a/doc/filesys.texi +++ b/doc/filesys.texi @@ -134,6 +134,9 @@ should pass the directory tests. Remaining miscellaneous items. @end enumerate +You can implement extensible files and subdirectories in parallel if +you temporarily make the number of entries in new directories fixed. + You should think about synchronization throughout. @node Project 4 Requirements @@ -316,7 +319,7 @@ older entry if necessary. You are limited to a cache no greater than 64 sectors in size. You must implement a cache replacement algorithm that is at least as -good as the ``clock'' algorithm. Your algorithm must also account for +good as the ``clock'' algorithm. We encourage you to account for the generally greater value of metadata compared to data. Experiment to see what combination of accessed, dirty, and other information results in the best performance, as measured by the number of disk diff --git a/ta-advice/HW4 b/ta-advice/HW4 index 5cf78d7..225c08b 100644 --- a/ta-advice/HW4 +++ b/ta-advice/HW4 @@ -497,8 +497,7 @@ C2: Many schemes are possible. For full credit, students must use an algorithm that is at least as good as the second-chance (clock) - algorithm, and they must take the difference between data and - metadata into account in some way. + algorithm. Some implementations I've seen, with comments: -- 2.30.2