Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 25 May 2000 14:04:46 -0700
From:      Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
To:        Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Cc:        Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@pobox.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Proper uses for MFS?
Message-ID:  <20000525140446.J28594@fw.wintelcom.net>
In-Reply-To: <200005252022.NAA84015@apollo.backplane.com>; from dillon@apollo.backplane.com on Thu, May 25, 2000 at 01:22:40PM -0700
References:  <200005251705.NAA67491@blackhelicopters.org> <200005251757.KAA83404@apollo.backplane.com> <20000525141623.D6776@sasami.jurai.net> <200005252022.NAA84015@apollo.backplane.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> [000525 13:58] wrote:
> 
> :You, Matthew Dillon, were spotted writing this on Thu, May 25, 2000 at 10:57:33AM -0700:
> :> 
> :>     I don't particularly like to use MFS for 'large' partitions, mainly
> :>     because cached data blocks wind up in core memory twice (once in MFS's
> :>     memory map, and once in the VM page cache).
> :
> :You've said this several times in threads on MFS during recent months,
> :and I've always wanted to ask: is that a necessary 'feature' of MFS's
> :architecture, or something which could possibly be fixed without
> :too much hard work? For instance, would it be possible to force
> :VM not to cache MFS pages, etc.?
> :
> :-- 
> :Anatoly Vorobey,
> 
>     The double caching is a consequence of MFS's 'physical media' being
>     the mmap() rather then real physical media.  It would be difficult
>     to fix, and probably not worth the effort.
> 
>     MFS's only advantage is that the double-caching tends to keep pages
>     in-core longer, and you have less 'real' physical I/O because things
>     like write-behind and buffer cache flushes are doing nothing more
>     then flusing from the kernel's main VM page cache into MFS's memory
>     map.
> 
>     If you have enough memory not to care about the double-caching issue,
>     then MFS will work fine.

y'know...

We could do a really good job of a disk backed MFS by having a mount
flag for the syncer to ignore a mount point as well as marking it
async.

-Alfred


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000525140446.J28594>