> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:32:46 +0100
quoted text
> From: Otto Moerbeek <otto@drijf.net>
> 
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 09:24:30PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> 
> > Though for a program like cp, this may qualify as a big diff.  :)
> > 
> > Continuing in my "make IO suck less" phase, cp would be a lot more 
> > efficient if it didn't bounce the disk heads around so much.  Instead of 
> > using a tiny 64k buffer, use an amount based on a small fraction of RAM.  
> 
> Isn't it the task of the buffer cache to optimize memory use here?

Exactly the point I was just about to raise.