From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 17 15:46:24 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5DDF1065679; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:46:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marck@rinet.ru) Received: from woozle.rinet.ru (woozle.rinet.ru [195.54.192.68]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39C3C8FC23; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:46:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marck@rinet.ru) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by woozle.rinet.ru (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n5HFi7cJ015096; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:44:08 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from marck@rinet.ru) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:44:07 +0400 (MSD) From: Dmitry Morozovsky To: Wojciech Puchar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <4A36930F.2000302@delphij.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) X-NCC-RegID: ru.rinet X-OpenPGP-Key-ID: 6B691B03 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.2 (woozle.rinet.ru [0.0.0.0]); Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:44:08 +0400 (MSD) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, d@delphij.net, Ivan Voras Subject: Re: tmpfs experimental? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:46:25 -0000 On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Wojciech Puchar wrote: WP> > > In other words, is there still reason for the "highly experimental WP> > > feature" warning? WP> > WP> > Last time when I added the warning, it was because some data corruption WP> > issue that can be identified by fsx which I didn't got a chance to WP> > investigate further. I think tmpfs is Ok for some usual work but maybe WP> > not ready for production at that moment. alc@ and kib@ has made a lot WP> > of changes on it recently so perhaps we need to re-visit the problems, WP> > tmpfs would be a great feature for us. WP> WP> as an ordinary user not programmer of tmpfs i can say that: WP> WP> 1) runs fine for months in production environments, including case with over WP> 40 mountpoints (jails) WP> 2) runs really fast when memory is available. WP> 3) performance is bad in case that swapping actually is used. It reads from WP> swap with too small chunks. it's a place for improvement here. WP> WP> Its great thing as it does it properly - memory is immediately freed on WP> delete, and no caching of memory disk like with md(4). Actually, buffer cache is used, so excessive memory usage are still in place; also, on rather heavy tmpfs usage (building large ports, for example) I still can panic and/or hang the machione with exhausted maxswzone, so there definitely is a place to improve things ;) -- Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] [ FreeBSD committer: marck@FreeBSD.org ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------