Cees de Groot wrote: > > David Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >These are exactly the reasons that I have not used either the mem cache or the >ramdisk cache for our linux computers here. Too bad the tmpfs cache doesn't work >(yet). > > > Would it really be better than doing the same through ext2? After all, Linux > is quite aggressive in caching (sometimes better than on-controller RAM > caches), so I don't think you'll see much of a difference. And because tmpfs > - if it's the same thing as under Solaris - resizes dynamically, wouldn't that > make the afs client module extremely unhappy? From what i understand of tmpfs on linux. You can set a max value at mount time. The fs will grow as needed until it reaches the max.
Jason _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
