Re: Relative performance of swap-backed MFS vs. regular UFS?
From: Igor Pokrovsky (ip_at_doom.homeunix.org)
Date: 10/23/04
- Previous message: soralx_at_cydem.org: "Re: [PATCH] Re: Linksys PCM200"
- In reply to: Clifton Royston: "Relative performance of swap-backed MFS vs. regular UFS?"
- Next in thread: Igor Pokrovsky: "Re: Relative performance of swap-backed MFS vs. regular UFS?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:06:38 +0400 To: hackers@freebsd.org
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 12:32:40PM -1000, Clifton Royston wrote:
> I have seen some conflicting information posted about this in the
> past, and I figure this is the best place to get an authoritative
> answer.
>
> For a large temporary file system which must hold short-lived files,
> mostly small but occasionally several very large ones (e.g. 100MB+), is
> it better for performance and stability if this file system:
>
> 1) resides on a swap-backed MFS and trusts the OS to swap out
> low-priority blocks if needed under RAM pressure, or
>
> 2) on a regular UFS and trusts the OS to buffer as many blocks as
> possible into RAM when RAM is free?
You can also use md(4). In my case I use it for /tmp.
-ip
-- The best shots happen immediately after the last frame is exposed. _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: soralx_at_cydem.org: "Re: [PATCH] Re: Linksys PCM200"
- In reply to: Clifton Royston: "Relative performance of swap-backed MFS vs. regular UFS?"
- Next in thread: Igor Pokrovsky: "Re: Relative performance of swap-backed MFS vs. regular UFS?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|