Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 15:32:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Adam <bsdx@looksharp.net> To: Doug Barton <DougB@gorean.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, dillon@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /tmp on a ramdisk? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007301531080.77768-100000@turtle.looksharp.net> In-Reply-To: <3984728D.15638FE3@gorean.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Doug Barton wrote: >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. :) From recollection I think its because the data is in memory (obvious) and it also gets cached in the disk buffer or something like that :) I'm not quite sure, thats why I cc'ed Matt. 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.4.21.0007301531080.77768-100000>