Re: storeGet() -> storeGetPublic() ?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Nordstrom" <hno@hem.passagen.se>
To: "Adrian Chadd" <adrian@creative.net.au>
Cc: <squid-dev@squid-cache.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: storeGet() -> storeGetPublic() ?

> Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
> > .. but then, it wouldn't be that hard to have something percolate back
> > up to squid to say "object X was destroyed", if it would help the
> > cache digest cause.
>
> Problem is that is basically doesn't help very much, unless you go back
> to keeping a full index of every object.
>
> You still need to be able to retreive the index to refresh or rebuild
> the digest. (yes, digests do need to be completely rebuilt from time to
> time to adjust to changes in amount of information in the digest)
>
> /Henrik
>
>

Hang on, I must have missed something.
Correct me if I'm wrong but to create a digest you set a bit x on in a large array if 1 or more cached URI's put through filter(URI)
match that bit number.

if we have a small ref count on each bit, and an event when a URI gets deleted, we can decrement the refcount for bit filter(URI).
That should be a lot smaller.
As for rebuilding the digest, what about a schedulable background process to create a new digest, and then swap the active digest
across when it completes?
Ie for a period of time you have two digests, one active, one being built, and they are both registered to recieve URI deletion
messages until the new one becomes active.

Thoughts?

Rob
Received on Sun Jan 07 2001 - 07:23:54 MST