Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 16:48:41 +0100 From: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, delphij@freebsd.org Subject: Re: is TMPFS still highly experimental? Message-ID: <CADLo83-s_3H8PbbxOPPxbe0m10U0U5JW-feB294dFs%2BQ3iTWvg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1110011122030.882@multics.mit.edu> References: <CAOfDtXMm9K_fbOmvG2gvXxDfKakkgpPt9MLifqDxa4wCibMExg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1110011122030.882@multics.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1 Oct 2011 16:41, "Benjamin Kaduk" <kaduk@mit.edu> 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.
Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83-s_3H8PbbxOPPxbe0m10U0U5JW-feB294dFs%2BQ3iTWvg>