From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 2 01:59:54 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3B5106564A; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 01:59:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Cy.Schubert@komquats.com) Received: from idcmail-mo2no.shaw.ca (idcmail-mo2no.shaw.ca [64.59.134.9]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDB208FC14; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 01:59:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lb7f8hsrpno-svcs.dcs.int.inet (HELO pd5ml3no-ssvc.prod.shaw.ca) ([10.0.144.222]) by pd6mo1no-svcs.prod.shaw.ca with ESMTP; 01 Oct 2011 19:44:51 -0600 X-Cloudmark-SP-Filtered: true X-Cloudmark-SP-Result: v=1.1 cv=K6fnQZae8TPX1i0cofjQtTsb/A4CHt4xfMPVU6P219U= c=1 sm=1 a=wsYwexm5Hl4A:10 a=QrugwKR0C_UA:10 a=wAGQQ9Az6v0A:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=xA7i7079zcQA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=2Er20JxOMs3KTlR2XTlUiQ==:17 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8 a=BWvPGDcYAAAA:8 a=h3bh4sfWgBWHQ8pq34wA:9 a=ReKk-9sT69euaDyOnQQA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=uhEn_2vkUPoA:10 a=V7tsTZBp22UA:10 a=SV7veod9ZcQA:10 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117 Received: from unknown (HELO spqr.komquats.com) ([24.68.73.211]) by pd5ml3no-dmz.prod.shaw.ca with ESMTP; 01 Oct 2011 19:44:51 -0600 Received: from cwsys.cwsent.com (cwsys [10.1.1.1]) by spqr.komquats.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BA9946B85; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 18:44:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cwsys (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cwsys.cwsent.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p921iJ6f055030; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 18:44:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Cy.Schubert@komquats.com) Message-Id: <201110020144.p921iJ6f055030@cwsys.cwsent.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3 From: Cy Schubert X-os: FreeBSD X-Sender: cy@cwsent.com X-URL: http://www.komquats.com/ To: Chris Rees In-Reply-To: Message from Chris Rees of "Sat, 01 Oct 2011 16:48:41 BST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2011 18:44:19 -0700 Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Adrian Chadd , delphij@freebsd.org Subject: Re: is TMPFS still highly experimental? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Cy Schubert List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 01:59:54 -0000 In message , Chris Rees writes: > On 1 Oct 2011 16:41, "Benjamin Kaduk" wrote: > > > > On Sat, 1 Oct 2011, Robert Millan wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> Is TMPFS still considered highly experimental? I notice a warning > >> saying this was added in 2007: > >> > >> fs/tmpfs/tmpfs_vfsops.c: printf("WARNING: TMPFS is considered > >> to be a highly experimental " > >> > >> Since it's very old, I wonder if it still applies. After 4 years and > >> 54 commits, can someone tell if the maturity of this file system has > >> improved significantly? > > > > > > This thread: > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2011-June/025475.html > > has covered this topic somewhat. Peter Holm (pho) is known for running > pretty intensive filesystem (and other) stress tests, and did not come up > with a whole lot of crashes. > > Also, > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?&sort=none&text=tmpfs > > is not too big, showing only a couple of new reports. > > Mayhaps it is not "highly" experimental, but probably still experimental, > at least. > > > > I've also not heard of anyone using it with zfs successfully- it tends to > shrink rapidly. I use it with ZFS however, having been an OSF/1 (and subsequently Tru64) admin in a previous life, I use it with a limit of 200 MB (10x the amount that OSF/1 did). I've used the same limits when I was a Solaris admin to limit the exposure to accidental DoS attacks. With the tmpfs limit in place I've never seen it shrink. I think tmpfs limits are always a good idea. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert FreeBSD UNIX: Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org