On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Wojciech Puchar wrote: WP> > > In other words, is there still reason for the "highly experimental WP> > > feature" warning? WP> > WP> > Last time when I added the warning, it was because some data corruption WP> > issue that can be identified by fsx which I didn't got a chance to WP> > investigate further. I think tmpfs is Ok for some usual work but maybe WP> > not ready for production at that moment. alc@ and kib@ has made a lot WP> > of changes on it recently so perhaps we need to re-visit the problems, WP> > tmpfs would be a great feature for us. WP> WP> as an ordinary user not programmer of tmpfs i can say that: WP> WP> 1) runs fine for months in production environments, including case with over WP> 40 mountpoints (jails) WP> 2) runs really fast when memory is available. WP> 3) performance is bad in case that swapping actually is used. It reads from WP> swap with too small chunks. it's a place for improvement here. WP> WP> Its great thing as it does it properly - memory is immediately freed on WP> delete, and no caching of memory disk like with md(4).
Actually, buffer cache is used, so excessive memory usage are still in place; also, on rather heavy tmpfs usage (building large ports, for example) I still can panic and/or hang the machione with exhausted maxswzone, so there definitely is a place to improve things ;) -- Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] [ FreeBSD committer: [email protected] ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- [email protected] *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
