Relative performance of swap-backed MFS vs. regular UFS?

[Igor Pokrovsky]

On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 12:32:40PM -1000, Clifton Royston wrote:
>   I have seen some conflicting information posted about this in the
> past, and I figure this is the best place to get an authoritative
> answer.
> 
>   For a large temporary file system which must hold short-lived files,
> mostly small but occasionally several very large ones (e.g. 100MB+), is
> it better for performance and stability if this file system:
> 
>   1) resides on a swap-backed MFS and trusts the OS to swap out
> low-priority blocks if needed under RAM pressure, or
> 
>   2) on a regular UFS and trusts the OS to buffer as many blocks as
> possible into RAM when RAM is free?

You can also use md(4). In my case I use it for /tmp.

-ip

-- 
The best shots happen immediately after the last
frame is exposed.