[lkml]   [1999]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Partition Sizing
    Greg Lindahl <> said:
    > "Fred Reimer" at Jul 25, 99 04:55:48 pm said:
    > > > So, educate me please: why don't you install all of Solaris on a tmpfs
    > > > partition, if it's faster? ;)

    > > It's my understanding that one of the reasons that one would use a
    > > tmpfs for the /tmp directory is because by definition it would start
    > > out "clean" upon reboot.

    > Ahem. The actual reason that tmpfs is not widely used is that it
    > completely turns off synchronous writes of metadata, leading to
    > filesystems which can't possibly survive a reboot.

    tmpfs on Solaris lives just in virtual memory; if you'd installed Solaris
    only on tmpfs, you'd have to do so on each reboot. Not really useful, is
    it ;-)

    > Linux already has un-agressive metadata writes in ext2fs, so ext2fs is
    > almost as fast as tmpfs, albeit riskier (frequent minor damage on
    > reboot, needlessly requiring human intervention.) Someday I need to
    > rewrite my boot scripts so that they do "fsck -y" and save me a log of
    > what got clobbered. When you're rebooting 4096 machines, you can't go
    > fix all the filesystems by hand. Grrrr.

    "Frequently"? Happens roughly as often as with Solaris, in my experience.
    But the machines I have at hand have different workloads, so my experience
    might not count much. OTOH, my SS4 here is now Linux (was Solaris 2.5.1),
    and I see _less_ frequency of hand intervention on boot now...

    > > Others have mentioned that a "good" use of such a system would be for
    > > diskless stations, so that they would not have to transfer "temporary"
    > > files over the 'net because they didn't have local disk storage...

    But they would swap over the net, with the same (or worse) end result.

    > Yes, in that case an automatically-resizing memory filesystem would be
    > quite handy. But it's easy to crash your machine that way by running
    > out of memory, so it's better to use (less efficient) NFS or samba
    > filesystems.

    That _do_ store your data permanently. It's just part of the cost you pay
    for persistent data.

    PS: Nice troll, not overdone.
    Dr. Horst H. von Brand
    Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
    Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
    Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:53    [W:0.040 / U:4.164 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site