[laumars]

Yes, I know there is a cache. I went into great detail about it. That wasn’t what I asked you to prove.

What we were arguing about was the L2 cache - which you argued could hold a 2GB file (insanity I call it) and you’re still not proving that point of yours. In fact you’re not even checking if it’s cached in the system memory (there are syscalls to do that), you’re just checking application performance. While it’s pretty obvious that result would have been due to caching it would have been easy to prove that more conclusively by even just flushing the cache (I assume you actually know how to do that? Hint: you can just write to the /proc directory from your shell to do that. It’s easy) and then repeating the test; but You didn’t even do that!

You’re testing is so rudimentary at covering the cases you’re making claims against it’s laughable. you’ve not even begun to address the “processor memory” point you were arguing.

But I honestly think we should just leave it here. You don’t need to be an expert in kernel design nor practical experience in write file systems to write a decent file manager, so all of this arguing is pointless. I just ask that you aren’t so quick to judge other solutions when it’s painfully obvious there are massive gaps in your own understanding.

[apjana]

I think you are referring to where I mentioned a large file copied second time. That is cached in RAM (I have 6GB) and not in L2. I think it's pretty clear from the context that I was emphasizing disk IO is not involved which was your main point of concern.

[apjana]

- which you argued could hold a 2GB file

No I didn't say that! I've always meant the metadata (that nnn needs) cache which I proved above. Clearly there's some misunderstanding.