J. R. Okajima: > Do you mean you prefer the patch for tmpfs than "trunc_xino" option? I thought it is better because you wrote: "I hope this patch will be more effective than aufs "trunc_xino" option." I only tested patched tmpfs, I did not test "trunc_xino" option, so, I will test my systems with "trunc_xino" option and see if this solves the problem + offers good performance. If it does, than I guess I will be happy with "trunc_xino" and tmpfs patch can wait until you will have time to finish it. > If you really like the tmpfs patch I posted, then I'd suggest you to try > measuring the performance. Does the patched tmpfs satisfy you even under > heavy load? Â Usually there is no heavy load on those systems, but I can test it during this or next week and let you know. For now I will use "trunc_xino". Thank you. -- Use GNU/Linux
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out: • 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity • Requirements for releasing software faster • Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce
