From owner-freebsd-current Thu Apr 27 18: 0:21 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from pericles.IPAustralia.gov.au (pericles.IPAustralia.gov.au [202.14.186.30]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 266FF37BDB4 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 18:00:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from carl@xena.aipo.gov.au) Received: (from smap@localhost) by pericles.IPAustralia.gov.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA69093; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 10:59:31 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from carl@xena.aipo.gov.au) Received: from newton.aipo.gov.au(10.0.100.18) by pericles.IPAustralia.gov.au via smap (V2.0) id xma069081; Fri, 28 Apr 00 10:59:02 +1000 Received: from localhost (carl@localhost) by newton.aipo.gov.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA37375; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 11:01:36 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from carl@xena.aipo.gov.au) X-Authentication-Warning: newton.aipo.gov.au: carl owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 11:01:36 +1000 (EST) From: Carl Makin X-Sender: carl@newton.aipo.gov.au To: Matthew Dillon Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Support for large mfs In-Reply-To: <200004271634.JAA05279@apollo.backplane.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi Matthew, On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Matthew Dillon wrote: > I can't imagine why MFS would perform better... it shouldn't, every > block is stored in system memory *TWICE* (once in the VM cache, and > once in the mfs process's address space). If you have enough system I've been running a MFS /tmp dir since around 2.2.4, are you now saying that it would be better (under 4.0-STABLE or CURRENT) to run a swap backed vnode fs? Carl. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message