From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 16 11:30:56 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A2B106564A; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:30:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [IPv6:2001:4070:101:2::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAF718FC0A; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:30:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n5GBUTTJ027602; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:30:29 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) with ESMTP id n5GBUQm0027599; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:30:29 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:30:25 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar To: d@delphij.net In-Reply-To: <4A36930F.2000302@delphij.net> Message-ID: References: <4A36930F.2000302@delphij.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:05:35 +0000 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras Subject: Re: tmpfs experimental? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:30:57 -0000 >> In other words, is there still reason for the "highly experimental >> feature" warning? > > Last time when I added the warning, it was because some data corruption > issue that can be identified by fsx which I didn't got a chance to > investigate further. I think tmpfs is Ok for some usual work but maybe > not ready for production at that moment. alc@ and kib@ has made a lot > of changes on it recently so perhaps we need to re-visit the problems, > tmpfs would be a great feature for us. as an ordinary user not programmer of tmpfs i can say that: 1) runs fine for months in production environments, including case with over 40 mountpoints (jails) 2) runs really fast when memory is available. 3) performance is bad in case that swapping actually is used. It reads from swap with too small chunks. it's a place for improvement here. Its great thing as it does it properly - memory is immediately freed on delete, and no caching of memory disk like with md(4).