Subject: Re: mfs woes
To: Steven M. Bellovin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Andrew Brown <email@example.com>
Date: 07/13/2004 23:34:32
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:32:22PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>In message <20040713232749.B943@noc.untraceable.net>, Andrew Brown writes:
>>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:17:20PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>>>In message <20040713230112.A426@noc.untraceable.net>, Andrew Brown writes:
>>>>write a real swap-based file system? mfs also comes with a ~2.9
>>>>gigabyte limit (on i386, at least). when using USE_TOPDOWN_VM. when
>>>>you're not, it comes with a ~1.8 gigabyte limit. regardless of how
>>>>much ram or swap you have.
>>>Given the new buffer cache architecture, I've been wondering if mfs
>>>even makes sense these days. Perhaps a disk partition mounted with
>>>async would provide comparable performance? I don't know; I haven't
>>>tried it. But I'm getting ready to bring up a new machine; I might
>>>reserve a partition and see what happens.
>>mfs still makes sense as a "simple place to keep transient files that
>>you don't need from one boot to the next". newfs'ing or rmrf'ing /tmp
>>doesn't count, imho, because it doesn't scale.
>I suspect that newfs does scale quite well to the size file system that
>MFS can handle.
yes, but using mfs is easy whereas getting newfs to newfs a half-dozen
arbitrary small filesystems (/var/run, /cvslock, etc) at boot is not
something that you can do with one line of configuration in the
infrastructure that already exists. :)
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
firstname.lastname@example.org * "ah! i see you have the internet
email@example.com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
firstname.lastname@example.org * "information is power -- share the wealth."