From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu May 25 12:52:11 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from sasami.jurai.net (sasami.jurai.net [63.67.141.99]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A692637B67F for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 12:52:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from scanner@jurai.net) Received: from localhost (scanner@localhost) by sasami.jurai.net (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA08894; Thu, 25 May 2000 15:52:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 15:52:01 -0400 (EDT) From: To: Anatoly Vorobey Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Matthew Dillon Subject: Re: Proper uses for MFS? In-Reply-To: <20000525141623.D6776@sasami.jurai.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 25 May 2000, Anatoly Vorobey wrote: > 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.? Not being an expert on MFS, I think the "problem" is that MFS was created before our VM and Buffer cache was merged. And once that happened MFS was never made to take advantage of that fact. ============================================================================= -Chris Watson (316) 326-3862 | FreeBSD Consultant, FreeBSD Geek Work: scanner@jurai.net | Open Systems Inc., Wellington, Kansas Home: scanner@deceptively.shady.org | http://open-systems.net ============================================================================= WINDOWS: "Where do you want to go today?" LINUX: "Where do you want to go tommorow?" BSD: "Are you guys coming or what?" ============================================================================= To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message