Re: mfs vs tmpfs: advantages and disadvantages

And what about performance? Is tmpfs or mfs faster? Is one or another more resource hungry? -- Furthermore, I consider that systemd must be destroyed Latin oratorical phrase

Re: mfs vs tmpfs: advantages and disadvantages

On Tue, 03 May 2016 02:53:36 -0600 Theo de Raadt wrote: > mfs is reliable. > tmpfs has bugs, and as a result of those bugs, it has fewer and fewer > users. > Or, maybe there are fewer problem reports because fewer people use > it, because those who tried to use it ran

Re: mfs vs tmpfs: advantages and disadvantages

I actually wrote a patch to that a while back, and it was not accepted. Looking back, I am not disappointed that it was rejected, and it forced me to find another solution: shell scripts, included below. However, in light of what Theo said, I'm possibly going to move back to mfs; even if I

Re: mfs vs tmpfs: advantages and disadvantages

On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:08:06PM +1000, bytevolc...@safe-mail.net wrote: > With tmpfs being in the tree for the last 2+ years (since OpenBSD 5.5), > I would like to ask, besides the "-P" option in mount_mfs, what is the > advantage of using mfs over tmpfs? tmpfs on Bitrig does support

Re: mfs vs tmpfs: advantages and disadvantages

> With tmpfs being in the tree for the last 2+ years (since OpenBSD 5.5), > I would like to ask, besides the "-P" option in mount_mfs, what is the > advantage of using mfs over tmpfs? mfs is reliable. > It seems tmpfs has the following advantages: > > - Can grow or shrink; shrinks when files