Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!norsk
From: norsk@sequent.UUCP (Doug Thompson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: filesystem cache blocks
Message-ID: <26198@sequent.UUCP>
Date: 12 Dec 89 16:43:07 GMT
References: <9374@microsoft.UUCP> <2350@ditsyda.oz>
Reply-To: norsk@crg2.UUCP (Doug Thompson)
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 30

In article <2350@ditsyda.oz> evans@ditsyda.oz (Bruce Evans) writes:
>In article <9374@microsoft.UUCP> stevesc@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Schonberger) writes:
>>Is it possible to allow the filesystem process to use all (or most of)
>>free memory as disk cache?  (If it does that already, excuse the dumb
>
>Everything is possible :-). This is a good idea.
>
>
>I now have 32-bit mode working on a 386 so there is no 64K limit on pointers
>in FS. I use a 320K cache. Currently, FS is not allowed to access memory
>outside its data segment, and has no way to allocate such memory. The MMU
>will make many things easier at the cost of portability.
>-- 
>Bruce Evans		evans@ditsyda.oz.au

I was wondering Bruce, what are the future minix on a 32-bit 386 plans???
It will be great to get rid of the 16-bit limitations and have more memory.
Is it only a research project or are there possible releases sometime in
the future?? Whose C compiler??

Anyway, this is of interest.
TIA

(BTW - thanks for all the info you keep posting.)

-- 
Douglas Thompson		UUCP: ..{tektronix,ogicse,uunet}!sequent!norsk
Sequent Computer Systems	Phone: (503) 526-5727
15450 SW Koll Parkway	!"The scientist builds to learn;the engineer learns in
Beaverton OR 97006	!order to build."  Fred Brooks