Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:06:38 +0400 From: Igor Pokrovsky <ip@doom.homeunix.org> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Relative performance of swap-backed MFS vs. regular UFS? Message-ID: <20041023180638.GA19033@doom.homeunix.org> In-Reply-To: <20041022223238.GA12502@tikitechnologies.com> References: <20041022223238.GA12502@tikitechnologies.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041023180638.GA19033>