Subject: Re: mfs woes
To: Andrew Brown <email@example.com>
From: Steven M. Bellovin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/13/2004 23:32:22
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.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb