From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jul 30 11:23:33 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from dt052n3e.san.rr.com (dt052n3e.san.rr.com [204.210.33.62]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FCEC37B567; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:23:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@gorean.org) Received: from gorean.org (master [10.0.0.2]) by dt052n3e.san.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26456; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:23:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@gorean.org) Message-ID: <3984728D.15638FE3@gorean.org> Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:23:09 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, dillon@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /tmp on a ramdisk? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Adam wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Doug Barton wrote: > > >Ted Sikora wrote: > >> > >> A while ago several people suggested using /tmp on a ramdisk along with > >> softupdates. Right now I am running several production servers with > >> 4.1-STABLE with softupdates. I'm really happy with the performance. What > >> benefits would I realize using /tmp on a ramdisk? > > > > CW on this is varied, but the current trend is that /tmp on a md is just a > >waste of ram, since (basically) everything in /tmp is in ram twice. > > > >Doug > > I thought that was MFS only and that MD took care of that issue? You're about the 4th person to say that, but so far no one has said how they are different. How does MD solve the problem of the stuff on its filesystem being in memory once (on the memory disk) and again in cache? I certainly don't mind being proved wrong on this, since I don't use ram disks myself, but it would be nice to have some details. :) Doug To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message