mdmfs(8) has an example of a malloc-backed md device mounted with the
async option. Is there any point in doing this with malloc and vnode
devices? In neither case does a write to the file-system require a write
to a physical disk.
i don't think so.
but if you use FreeBSD 7 use tmpfs. it says
RW wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 03:08:34 +0200
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RW wrote:
I meant that a write to the filesystem doesn't require a
corresponding write to disk, and the change can stay in memory
indefinitely. Presumably, more or less, the same inactive pages get
written-out
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
mdmfs(8) has an example of a malloc-backed md device mounted with the
async option. Is there any point in doing this with malloc and vnode
devices? In neither case does a write to the file-system require a write
to a physical disk.
i don't think so.
but if you use
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:39:35 +0200
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I was referring to vnode devices. I guess there was some
confusion because in your reply you mentioned swap, not vnode.
Sorry, that was my fault. I meant to ask about about malloc and
swap backed devices, and never
but if you use FreeBSD 7 use tmpfs. it says it's experimental feature, but
still not crashed on 3 computers i use it.
There are known bugs, don't use it if you value your stability :)
what it's missing is some kind of quota, you may crash the system by simply
filling it up and using all swap
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
but if you use FreeBSD 7 use tmpfs. it says it's experimental
feature, but still not crashed on 3 computers i use it.
There are known bugs, don't use it if you value your stability :)
what it's missing is some kind of quota, you may crash the system by
simply filling it
RW wrote:
But isn't the normal point of async to avoid having the cpu waiting for
the disk with nothing to do. If there's nothing to block on, the cpu can
be consistently utilized without async. I suppose with SMP it might
help spread the work between cpus, but with a single cpu it seems like
RW wrote:
mdmfs(8) has an example of a malloc-backed md device mounted with the
async option. Is there any point in doing this with malloc and vnode
devices? In neither case does a write to the file-system require a write
to a physical disk.
Well, for vnode devices it does write to the disk,
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 01:19:46 +0200
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RW wrote:
mdmfs(8) has an example of a malloc-backed md device mounted with
the async option. Is there any point in doing this with malloc and
vnode devices? In neither case does a write to the file-system
require
RW wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 01:19:46 +0200
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RW wrote:
mdmfs(8) has an example of a malloc-backed md device mounted with
the async option. Is there any point in doing this with malloc and
vnode devices? In neither case does a write to the file-system
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 03:08:34 +0200
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RW wrote:
I meant that a write to the filesystem doesn't require a
corresponding write to disk, and the change can stay in memory
indefinitely. Presumably, more or less, the same inactive pages get
written-out to
11 matches
Mail list logo
