Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 18:18:25 -0500 (EST) From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@rush.net> To: Brian Feldman <green@unixhelp.org> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: memory-based VFS Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990507181246.7628b-100000@cygnus.rush.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9905071547530.93800-100000@janus.syracuse.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 7 May 1999, Brian Feldman wrote: > On Fri, 7 May 1999, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > On Fri, 7 May 1999, Chris Costello wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 7, 1999, Ronald G. Minnich wrote: > > > > The v9fs memory-based VFS, written by Aaron Marks, is available at > > > > http://www.acl.lanl.gov/~rminnich/ > > > > > > Doesn't this do the same thing as MFS? > > > > Yes, but without the mount_mfs process kludge it seems to allow for > > single copy, rather than double copy and extra context switches, it > > uses kvm instead of a user process for backing store. > > So what would be wrong with using a swap-backed vn(4) and newfs/tunefs/ > mounting it? It's a kludge, a MUCH improved kludge, but yet a kludge. You can't for instance... resize the filesystem, it will do FFS-y type things where there is no need to do them, even in async mode. Limits on inodes, limits on block sizes... it could all be changed dynamically with a "real" mfs. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.990507181246.7628b-100000>