Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 06:36:56 -0700 From: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> To: Jia-Shiun Li <jiashiun@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Teach mdmfs about tmpfs and use tmpfs in rc scripts Message-ID: <1394199416.1149.367.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> In-Reply-To: <CAHNYxxNSjNMg8hMGL2d%2B223P6gwFJUU%2Bdxnbqcz08SR5A-JDFQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <1394148413.1149.348.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <CAHNYxxNSjNMg8hMGL2d%2B223P6gwFJUU%2Bdxnbqcz08SR5A-JDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 12:52 +0800, Jia-Shiun Li wrote: > On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Is it ok to default mdmfs to tmpfs behavior? Not sure if anyone would > like to have explicit allocation e.g. failing early on insufficient memory, > rather than failing on write. If so then at least 'md' should be in the > options in addition to 'auto' and 'tmpfs' when both md and tmpfs are > available from kernel. > I'm not sure what you mean. If the device on the command line is md the program behaves as it always has. If you ask for 'auto' you get the "best" memory filesystem available for some definition of "best". If you don't trust someone else's definition of best (like you need failure at allocation time) then you choose the one that behaves the way you like. -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1394199416.1149.367.camel>