ericvh
commented
1 year ago current readahead does not keep the cache around. We should understand this better, although this may be a property of everything we put in to flush caches on close. At the very least we probably want to play with conditionalizing these based on loose which we might be able to back off to tight when we finally implement it.
this is a subcomponent of #4 - make sure simple readahead caching is working as expected.
for readahead we expect to see larger reads that "just work". what's less clear to me is whether or not this should include keeping reads around for subsequent reads which seems to be a different semantic.