From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 1 16:14:41 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 66B8C106564A for ; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 16:14:41 +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 2E8758FC12 for ; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 16:14:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iadk27 with SMTP id k27so4565688iad.13 for ; Sat, 01 Oct 2011 09:14:40 -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:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=kq9vKFeyuS7un6ivfQcbX+1sPHhXcjwbmeN3b7iD8fA=; b=KHllF3ljNntjeDz7SgFiRpBd1GwxLyVFR1bvqa4A+l3DzzNBzJh4SvYy0XWxw40cjD Hu4swSy999tF1XTaxYM9hdJaeiZZDOuv3wuE1Wjk8paIghvg+E4zmicrVYC7+Mu1szRC wv1GguPEdFJ16El/aGkm655GRy4n8gjslLZBY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.65.73 with SMTP id h9mr7002658ibi.21.1317484122411; Sat, 01 Oct 2011 08:48:42 -0700 (PDT) Sender: utisoft@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.35.194 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:48:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.35.194 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:48:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 16:48:41 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: lHdrXL6fYFoxCvEXWQML52Tc8Dg Message-ID: From: Chris Rees To: Benjamin Kaduk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Adrian Chadd , delphij@freebsd.org 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: Sat, 01 Oct 2011 16:14:41 -0000 On 1 Oct 2011 16:41, "Benjamin Kaduk" wrote: > > 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. > I've also not heard of anyone using it with zfs successfully- it tends to shrink rapidly. Chris