Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 11:49:39 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: /tmp, /var/log, /var/tmp as /dev/md - why? Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1407031134240.3872@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <1404396464.20883.404.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> References: <201407010925.s619PHeT006679@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <44a6e8a451a.810fa8f@mail.schwarzes.net> <53B3EB29.4030908@gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.11.1407030436060.99346@wonkity.com> <20140703105519.GA37593@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <1404396464.20883.404.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 3 Jul 2014, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 12:55 +0200, John Hay wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 04:47:24AM -0600, Warren Block wrote: >>> >>> So a limited-size tmpfs will be faster and use less memory overall. A >>> benchmark comparison would be interesting. >> >> Last time I looked the rc scripts that create /etc, /var and /tmp >> ramdisks only did it using md devices. It would be great if it was >> easily tunable from say rc.conf or if could detect which one is >> available and use that. > > I have patches ready to commit that do exactly that, but they weren't > exactly enthusiastically received when I posted them on arch@ for > review. This thread? http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2014-March/015141.html Have not read it fully yet, but it sounds exactly right: everything acts the same, the user can just pick tmpfs or mfs.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.11.1407031134240.3872>