Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Marian POPESCU wrote:
>
>
>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>>Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>FYI, IBM has applied for a patent on ARC (AFAICS the patent application
>>>>is still pending, although the USPTO site is a little hard to grok):
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040098541%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040098541&RS=DN/20040098541
>>>
>>>
>>>Ugh. We could hope that the patent wouldn't be granted, but I think
>>>it unlikely, unless Jan is aware of prior art (like a publication
>>>predating the filing date). I fear we'll have to change or remove
>>>that code.
>>>
>>> regards, tom lane
>>>
>>>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>>>TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>>>
>>
>>And what about "CAR: Clock with Adaptive Replacement"?
>>
>>I found something here:
>>http://www.cs.duke.edu/csl/usenix/04fast/tech/bansal.html
>>
>>Is it worth investigating?
>
>
> Firstly, it clearly states that it is a derivation of ARC. Secondly, one
> of the authors is from IBM. Implementing this algorithm will probably
> cause the same problem as the implementation of ARC.
>
>
>>best wishes,
>>marian
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gavin
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
There is also LIRS: http://www.cs.wm.edu/~sjiang/lirs.htm
Interesting?
