From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu May 25 11:45:41 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from blackhelicopters.org (geburah.blackhelicopters.org [209.69.178.18])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D23CD37B6E8
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 25 May 2000 11:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from mwlucas@blackhelicopters.org)
Received: (from mwlucas@localhost)
	by blackhelicopters.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA67888;
	Thu, 25 May 2000 14:45:27 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from mwlucas)
From: Michael Lucas <mwlucas@blackhelicopters.org>
Message-Id: <200005251845.OAA67888@blackhelicopters.org>
Subject: Re: Proper uses for MFS?
In-Reply-To: <20000525141623.D6776@sasami.jurai.net> from Anatoly Vorobey at "May 25, 2000  2:16:23 pm"
To: mellon@pobox.com (Anatoly Vorobey)
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 14:45:27 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> You, Matthew Dillon, were spotted writing this on Thu, May 25, 2000 at 10:57:33AM -0700:
> > 
> >     I don't particularly like to use MFS for 'large' partitions, mainly
> >     because cached data blocks wind up in core memory twice (once in MFS's
> >     memory map, and once in the VM page cache).
> 
> You've said this several times in threads on MFS during recent months,
> and I've always wanted to ask: is that a necessary 'feature' of MFS's
> architecture, or something which could possibly be fixed without
> too much hard work? For instance, would it be possible to force
> VM not to cache MFS pages, etc.?

It's my understanding that VM caching of MFS is a feature, not a bug.  See
/usr/share/doc/papers/memfs.ascii.gz .

==ml


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message