> The default cache-size in write-behind is 0, which makes it useless. The default should be set to a sensible value. 1MB might be a good value.

Is the above line a conclusion made from experimental observation, or just an opinion? The behavior of write-behind with 0 cache-size is to "write behind" one request at a time, and keep the following request blocked (not unwound) till the first request reply (nevertheless instantly stack wind the second request towards the server as soon as it arrives) -- not really useless.

Both patches 653 and 655 seem to be separately submitted towards this same bug. Is there a more convincing reason for these patches?

Avati

(In reply to comment #1)
> > The default cache-size in write-behind is 0, which makes it useless. The default should be set to a sensible value. 1MB might be a good value.
> 
> Is the above line a conclusion made from experimental observation, or just an
> opinion? The behavior of write-behind with 0 cache-size is to "write behind"
> one request at a time, and keep the following request blocked (not unwound)
> till the first request reply (nevertheless instantly stack wind the second
> request towards the server as soon as it arrives) -- not really useless.

Not an experimental observation, just an opinion.
 
> Both patches 653 and 655 seem to be separately submitted towards this same bug.
> Is there a more convincing reason for these patches?

I've marked my patch as Superseded. Please apply Raghu's patch.

Created attachment 34 [details]
This is another attempt

As the graph above clearly shows, it is better to set the default cache size to a higher value.

fix committed in bde0032cfbe51383c697247831e26394ca6cd913.