From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jun 9 15:32:27 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA18879 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 15:32:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (daemon@smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA18466; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 15:29:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert@usr01.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA07111; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 15:29:29 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr01.primenet.com(206.165.6.201) via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd007004; Tue Jun 9 15:29:22 1998 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA17328; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 15:29:12 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199806092229.PAA17328@usr01.primenet.com> Subject: Re: new config To: phk@critter.freebsd.dk (Poul-Henning Kamp) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 22:29:12 +0000 (GMT) Cc: sbabkin@dcn.att.com, itojun@iijlab.net, mike@smith.net.au, core@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <22166.897426445@critter.freebsd.dk> from "Poul-Henning Kamp" at Jun 9, 98 11:07:25 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > >> 5. Delete files no longer needed on the MFS to preserve RAM > >> > >Alternative approach: mount the traditional root filesystem > >on /, and the config-filesystem on /stand or something like. > > That would take more magic, which doesn't buy us any advantage > that I can see. There even is a performance gain in having > the / directory live in ram. One thing that would buy something is to mount an fs that looks like: / /dev On /, end then union mount the actual root on /, leaving the devfs exposed through the union. The / directory would be in RAM, but it would be in RAM in the devfs hierarchy. This would also reduce the init complexity, since init should not be responsible for the devfs mounts anyway. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message