Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>We are not building an artificial heart here, we are building a database
> >>and databases have been around for decades.
> >
> >
> > Well, ARC seems like a new database idea, at least in the past few
> > years. Are you saying ARC is either "ridiculous" or has prior art? I
> > know 2Q is similar, but not identical, and ARC does have some small
> > improvements over it.
>
> In this case I would say it is both. 2Q should (if not is) be considered
> prior art. Otherwise it would not have been as plug-n-play as it was.
> Note I am not making light of the work that it took, I couldn't have
> done it and I am glad that someone else had to.
>
> Secondly I would say that an ARC patent is ridiculous based on the above
> experience.
ARC is 2Q with the ability to dynamically resize the four cache pools.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
