Subject: Re: Is gcc slow? Or is our gcc slow?
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Collatz.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
List: current-users
Date: 04/10/1996 07:43:48
>> [...] mount a MFS on /tmp [...]
> MFS is really stupid.  You are wasting resources for the most of
> time.

/tmp has the same problem, it's just that the "wasted" resource is disk
space instead of RAM.

> Common temporary resources for all users are the best way to produce
> problems.  Some of them can not be solved, of course.  But others
> like common temorary scratch directories are not neccessary.

So, you would have ... what?  It's not clear to me what you're
proposing here.  It sounds almost as though you're proposing to replace
/tmp and /var/tmp and /usr/tmp with $HOME/tmp or some such.

> If there is just one user who made a mistake and allocates the entire
> space, then other users are not able to compile their program (and
> most don't know why).

"/tmp: file system is full" seems pretty clear to me, even to a novice.

> MFS means thinking like a MSDOS user.

No more so than /tmp - or /var/tmp - does already...unless you're
alluding to the prevalence of ramdisks on MSDOS, which isn't what the
context sounded like to me.

> A tuning guide might be also interesting, if the operation system can
> not tune itself (like others).

Hm, self-tuning, that sounds like (a) a really cool idea and (b) a
maintenance nightmare when it goes wrong.  When will you have a sample
implementation ready for us to experiment with?

					der Mouse