Re: Managing a "cache" of files

The phrase "very expensive computationally to create but can easily be re-made" seems like an oxymoron to me. Why do you need to cache them at all if they are very easy to re-make? Generally, the purpose of a 'cache' is to provide faster-than-normal access to data. You say you don't care about speed of access. Since you are talking about potentially a ~TB worth of data, seems to me that you're really just talking about perhaps a separate filesystem.

Comment on Re: Managing a "cache" of files

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Managing a "cache" of files by bot403 (Beadle) on Jul 28, 2009 at 19:09 UTC
You're right. Perhaps I was unclear. They're expensive CPU-wise to make but it's trivial from a user interface perspective/ user interaction perspective to re-make them. Its bad that we have to spend the CPU but its not a huge inconvenience or error. As with all caching its not a big deal if we dont have a cached version since we can get the "original" and cache it but the purpose of the cache is to not have to get the original every time.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: Managing a "cache" of files
by bot403 (Beadle) on Jul 28, 2009 at 19:09 UTC

You're right. Perhaps I was unclear. They're expensive CPU-wise to make but it's trivial from a user interface perspective/ user interaction perspective to re-make them. Its bad that we have to spend the CPU but its not a huge inconvenience or error. As with all caching its not a big deal if we dont have a cached version since we can get the "original" and cache it but the purpose of the cache is to not have to get the original every time.

[reply]