Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 2010-02-28 at 06:35:31 [+0100], mmlr@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > Log: > > The whole reading was seriously confused. It tried to use the block > > cache > > for > > multiple blocks at a time which it doesn't do as it always only > > returns one > > block (and actually completely ignores the provided offset and > > length). > Interesting. I wonder what Axel had planned for those parameters. Pretty simple: it should act as a hint for future reads, so that the block cache could already prefetch them more selectively. Bye, Axel.