From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 2 09:01:09 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 49214106564A; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 09:01:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kraduk@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com (mail-yw0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE798FC17; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 09:01:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ywp17 with SMTP id 17so3301992ywp.13 for ; Sun, 02 Oct 2011 02:01:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=13BkUlcaIWr2II59cMksQ+yfRdzUYpU/XT2uWwlhj6Y=; b=UhXDYve88itn0GuHlVCV5DbV5IQbf+OBbUYIScGz/CzdWtL0QNnvy65vxMXd83F2Z+ Laz1GFGeuxZDhu17FkEulUmPPyacei9kjoY38m639RX/oMRCpv+DMR43RWmEQ44yJxhv 7iR88LtsmL5SHJa2okeQc9hl1M8Z4zhxyRBWE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.76.102 with SMTP id a66mr15890307yhe.25.1317546067753; Sun, 02 Oct 2011 02:01:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.105.166 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 02:01:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20111002020231.GA70864@icarus.home.lan> Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 10:01:07 +0100 Message-ID: From: krad To: Chris Rees 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: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 09:01:09 -0000 On 2 October 2011 07:41, Chris Rees wrote: > On 2 Oct 2011 03:03, "Jeremy Chadwick" wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 06:02:39PM -0700, Xin LI wrote: > > > 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. I use tmpfs on my own system > > > and I never see such problem as long as one have sufficient swap > > > space. > > > > > > Not to say there is no problem --there is no way to say "commit this > > > amount of memory to ZFS" but really I have never hit this exact > > > alleged problem... > > > > Its been reported multiple times by multiple people, and there has been > > no official word on -fs, -stable, or zfs-devel that this specific > > problem has been fixed: > > > > * miyamoto moesasji > > - 2011/01/01 > > - 8.2-PRERELEASE (thus RELENG_8) > > - World/kernel build date unknown > > - > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2011-January/060850.html > > - > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2011-January/060852.html > > - > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2011-January/060860.html > > - > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2011-January/060861.html > > - Statement from Ivan Voras that it's a known problem: > > - > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2011-January/060867.html > > > > * Atilla Nagy > > - 2011/01/19 > > - 8.2-PRERELEASE (thus RELENG_8) > > - World/kernel build date of 2011/01/08 > > - > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2011-January/010496.html > > - > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2011-January/010497.html > > - > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2011-January/010498.html > > - > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2011-January/010499.html > > - > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2011-January/010501.html > > - > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2011-January/010569.html > > - Ivan Voras mentions a thread he started on -CURRENT circa 2010/11/21 > > about this problem: > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-current@freebsd.org/msg126491.html > > > > * Michael Loftis > > - 2009/12/08 > > - FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE (RELENG_8_0) > > - World/kernel build date of 2009/11/21 > > - Might be a different problem altogether, but tmpfs is explicitly > > mentioned in the fix/commit text from avg@ > > - http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/141305 > > > > Plus Chris Rees' report. So that makes 3, possibly 4 if you consider > > the PR from Michael Loftis. > > > > Possibly it has something to do with the exact FreeBSD version they're > > using. Not just version (e.g. 8.2-RELEASE vs. 8.2-STABLE), but also > > kernel/world build date -- because as we've established, ZFS changes are > > happening all the time and there is very little transparency when it > > comes to communicating these changes to the community. > > > > Maybe the problem has been fixed in RELENG_8 sometime after 2011/01/08, > > but we do not know. ZFS committers would need to help. Else, folks > > should be reaching out to the first two people I mentioned above and > > asking if they can reproduce the problem on present-day RELENG_8. > > > > Thanks hugely for doing the linking and research I should have done-- I've > not personally had these problems but I recalled the recent conversation, > that's all. > > Chris > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > It may seem a silly question, but I have been wondering about tmpfs and zfs, and whether there is any point to mixing the two? Surely if you have frequently accessed files under /tmp they are going to be in the arc or l2arc anyway so fairly speedy, or am I missing the point of tmpfs?