Michael Banck wrote:
Any comments on how they work for people and how to possibly improve the packaging and integration of the patch are very welcome.
Now it have come to my mind that DISK_CACHE_BLOCKS is 100. This is great for testing but slows down ext2fs noticeably. It's better if some digits are added to the number. 100000 looks better (this means 400,000K (~400M) cache for disk blocks, one block is 4K). It's actually recommended this value to exceed RAM because this way the decision which blocks are thrown away from the cache is left entirely to Mach. I didn't actually test with numbers greater than 100 but it should be OK ;-)
Regards, ogi