Talk:Cache (computing)

message: What's the software used to make flow chart diagram of write-back and write-through procedure? I'd very much like to use it for personal design.
ChazZeromus (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: grapholite.com  79.182.193.72 (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Flow charts

message: The article keeps telling about 'backing store'. But it doesn't mention what it is(Probably Hard disk drive?). So it needs to define backing store or provide a link to another article that describes what that backing store is. 
07:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The backing store is whatever the cache is caching. :-)  It could be main memory, or a cache at a higher level of the cache hierarchy, for a CPU cache or a TLB.  It could be a disk drive, SSD, or remote file server for a file data cache ("disk cache"/"page cache"); it could be a Web server for a Web cache; and so on. Guy Harris (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need clarification on backing store 

message: In risk of sounding silly, all cache is volatile right? I saw zero mention of volatility anywhere in the article, and if that's the case, it should be added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎BlueFenixReborn (talk • contribs) 08:59, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
: Hello!  Obviously, that depends on what kind of a device is used as a cache.  For example, using DRAM results in a volatile cache. while using an HDD or SSD means permanent storage of cached data.  It's pretty much implicitly known whenever a particular cache layout is mentioned in the article; thus, I don't think that it should be clarified further. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your browser for example also stores its caches on disk, which persists between restarts and reboots. Image viewer thumbnail caches are often stored persistently. -- intgr [talk] 08:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, thank you both for the clarification. BlueFenixReborn (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  All cache is volatile right? 

message: To be cost-effective and to enable efficient use of data, caches must be relatively small.
In ZFS, you could have a TB of SSD as your ARC caching a fully redundant disk pool whose capacity is not vastly larger in delivered capacity than the ARC cache.  
There are parameters other than relative size that potentially get traded off between the cache and the backing store. 
A new type of non-volatile memory that was far cheaper in capacity than flash, fast to read, but with a low write endurance could even lead to a reasonable deployment where cache:backing store was 1:1 (under a policy of extremely reluctant eviction). — MaxEnt 01:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not exactly true 

message: Backing store redirects to this article. However, the term "backing store" has a wider meaning in computing than just CPU caching. In particular, it's also the term used for an I/O stream that uses an in-memory buffer as its data source, i.e., the storage area that "backs" it up. While this could be construed as being some kind of cache for the stream, it's not really caching anything, but instead is the actual source of data for the stream. So I'm thinking that Backing store should be a separate article, or disambiguation page listing the various meanings. Any thoughts on this? — Loadmaster (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backing store 

message: A new section or new wikipedia article should be created about cache misses.
In particular the different types of misses could be described and explained with exemples: 
Capacity miss, Conflict miss, Compulsory miss, Coherence miss  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20 STS grp1 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cache misses types