From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 2 14:25:09 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA5E4106566B; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 14:25:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763C68FC12; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 14:25:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iadk27 with SMTP id k27so5857498iad.13 for ; Sun, 02 Oct 2011 07:25:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=J7BoISsX00JHHuIgOOJ8xX2djGuzcNeflo+EjC1jJBE=; b=YYMZlMfWygwW2aw0oOoh3DlKFw8pCIABaUHAMMF/dAs0bte5m3C0iTvPv8OCpMsn38 NID+95IFwuWf7hHboRtjHbFC2cpBFjsnuSt8YNdEpomlmE5ctB00A7qIz53v7IbfS3UV o7jSyP9tONGTkZ34ku1QvElBUvr+KsilZOFSM= Received: by 10.231.69.80 with SMTP id y16mr21205435ibi.34.1317565509055; Sun, 02 Oct 2011 07:25:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: utisoft@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.35.194 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 07:24:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Chris Rees Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 15:24:39 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: n8LwwVYK4uhkxheEOdYxm24KsjM Message-ID: To: Olivier Smedts Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, delphij@freebsd.org, Adrian Chadd Subject: Re: is TMPFS still highly experimental? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 14:25:09 -0000 On 2 October 2011 11:23, Olivier Smedts wrote: > 2011/10/2 Xin LI : >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Chris Rees wrote: >>> I've also not heard of anyone using it with zfs successfully- it tends = to >>> shrink rapidly. >> >> I'm quite surprised with this assertion. =A0I use tmpfs on my own system >> and I never see such problem as long as one have sufficient swap >> space. > > The problem here is "sufficient swap space". > > I've got 8G of RAM, and 2G of swap (just in case). When the ZFS ARC > reaches 4G, there's no room for a single byte in tmpfs, even with 2G > swap free and at least 2-3G RAM free. The swap size must be at least > the RAM size if you plan on using ZFS and tmpfs. That's a problem for > me because I'm short on disk space, and there's no point in having an > enormous swap size (hey, minidumps !) when you already have lots of > RAM, which is the case in most ZFS installs. > It's common practice to set the swap size equal to or more than the physical RAM size, as well as assumed in many places-- how could you have a crash dump otherwise? Unfortunately you probably won't get a 'fix' to allow swap