Subject: Re: MFS over ISO-9660 union mounted with no swap space?
To: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
From: Mike Cheponis <mac@Wireless.Com>
Date: 05/14/1999 14:47:48
> >But the -other- reason to float the ideas here is to get a general
> >concensus "blessing" that something like this makes sense and, if it were
> >implemented well, it would be included in a future kernel.
> Uh, from what i've read, what I'm seeing is more a consensus that this
> doesn't make sense and its not what we want.
I don't get that impression at all! From what I've seen, I've answered
every critic, and backed off from the "auto defrag" assertion.
In fact, it seems a better and better idea the more I answer the concerns.
>The fundamental reason is that the `flexibility' you want acually has
>negative utility in many environments.
Please explaing exactly why this is so, or give me pointers so I can read
the research papers explaining why this is so.
>VM/CMS used a very similar policy for each VM's `virtual memory' on
>their godforsaken minidisks: VMs `paged' to unallocated filespace on
>their minidisk. I cant recall that it being anything but an unmitigated pain.
Could you please be more specific than "unmitigated pain"?
Also, let's consider the "typical" piece of h/w that I think will be common
when I finish writing this code: An Alpha or Merced at >= 500 MHz
with at least 1/4 GB of DRAM and around 50 GB of disk.