Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 08:03:16 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: Craig Boston <craig@xfoil.gank.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: md /tmp and async mounts Message-ID: <20060604050316.GE61942@gothmog.pc> In-Reply-To: <20060602220724.GA71883@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20060523143013.GA11472@ci0.org> <20060523194106.GA46634@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060524203645.GB13500@gothmog.pc> <20060524203747.GA88742@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060524204617.GA13701@gothmog.pc> <20060601002024.GA1453@gothmog.pc> <20060601210655.GA36389@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060601213527.GA53422@gothmog.pc> <20060602215005.GA43170@nowhere> <20060602220724.GA71883@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2006-06-02 18:07, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> wrote: >On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 04:50:06PM -0500, Craig Boston wrote: >>On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 12:35:27AM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >>> Ok, I'll prepare a patch that enables async and disables -M. We >>> should also document the fact that tmpmfs="YES" and varmfs="YES" >>> in rc.conf may require the presence of at least one swap device >>> by default, and point the users to -M with a warning if they run >>> FreeBSD without a swap device but still want to use tmpmfs or >>> varmfs :) >> >> I may be mistaken, but from my (brief) reading of the code it seems >> to me that perhaps "swap-backed" isn't an entirely accurate term. >> More like "VM-backed", with the understanding that VM is (usually) >> backed by swap. >> >> I think if you don't have any swap configured, a swap-backed md >> will be no worse off than a memory-backed one would. > > Yeah, it's kind of a poorly chosen name. Should we still revert the default from using -M for tmpmfs="YES" and varmfs="YES" in rc.conf? - Giorgos
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060604050316.GE61942>