Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 11:26:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> To: Robert Millan <rmh@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, delphij@freebsd.org Subject: Re: is TMPFS still highly experimental? Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1110011122030.882@multics.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <CAOfDtXMm9K_fbOmvG2gvXxDfKakkgpPt9MLifqDxa4wCibMExg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAOfDtXMm9K_fbOmvG2gvXxDfKakkgpPt9MLifqDxa4wCibMExg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011, Robert Millan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is TMPFS still considered highly experimental? I notice a warning
> saying this was added in 2007:
>
> fs/tmpfs/tmpfs_vfsops.c: printf("WARNING: TMPFS is considered
> to be a highly experimental "
>
> Since it's very old, I wonder if it still applies. After 4 years and
> 54 commits, can someone tell if the maturity of this file system has
> improved significantly?
This thread:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2011-June/025475.html
has covered this topic somewhat. Peter Holm (pho) is known for running
pretty intensive filesystem (and other) stress tests, and did not come up
with a whole lot of crashes.
Also,
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?&sort=none&text=tmpfs
is not too big, showing only a couple of new reports.
Mayhaps it is not "highly" experimental, but probably still experimental,
at least.
-Ben Kaduk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.GSO.1.10.1110011122030.882>