Re: Relative performance of swap-backed MFS vs. regular UFS?
From: Igor Pokrovsky (ip_at_doom.homeunix.org)
Date: 10/23/04
- Previous message: Igor Pokrovsky: "Re: Relative performance of swap-backed MFS vs. regular UFS?"
- Maybe in reply to: Clifton Royston: "Relative performance of swap-backed MFS vs. regular UFS?"
- Next in thread: Robert Watson: "Re: Relative performance of swap-backed MFS vs. regular UFS?"
- Reply: Robert Watson: "Re: Relative performance of swap-backed MFS vs. regular UFS?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:24:20 +0400 To: hackers@freebsd.org
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 01:12:46PM -0500, Ryan Sommers wrote:
> >
> >You can also use md(4). In my case I use it for /tmp.
> >
> MFS is the same thing as md(4). mfs = Memory File System, md = Memory
> Disk. Difference is only in the name.
I thought mfs is allocated from virtual memory, while md - directly from RAM.
Am I wrong?
-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: Igor Pokrovsky: "Re: Relative performance of swap-backed MFS vs. regular UFS?"
- Maybe in reply to: Clifton Royston: "Relative performance of swap-backed MFS vs. regular UFS?"
- Next in thread: Robert Watson: "Re: Relative performance of swap-backed MFS vs. regular UFS?"
- Reply: Robert Watson: "Re: Relative performance of swap-backed MFS vs. regular UFS?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|