Thoughts on TMPFS no longer being considered "highly
gleb.kurtsou at gmail.com
Thu Jun 23 21:38:21 UTC 2011
On (23/06/2011 20:44), Olivier Smedts wrote:
> 2011/6/23 Alexander V. Chernikov <melifaro at ipfw.ru>:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > Matthew Jacob wrote:
> >> I gave up on using it after a brief try earlier this year. I can't
> >> remember the details, but it did lock up my amd64 system.
> >> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, David O'Brien wrote:
> >>> Does anyone object to this patch?
> >>> David Wolfskill and I have run TMPFS on a number of machines for two
> >>> years with no problems.
> >>> I may have missed something, but I'm not aware of any serious PRs on
> >>> TMPFS either.
> > There was some issues with sendfile(2) and mmap(2) causing kernel hangs
> > in some cases. vim triggers such hangs for me. However, those problems
> > were fixed and MFCed (afair).
> > I'm using tmpfs on several machines in production without any problems.
> > Maybe being _highly_ experimental for nearly 4 years is enough? :)
> I think there are still problems with high wired memory consumers like
> ZFS. I've got 0-sized tmpfs with 8GB RAM + ZFS with 4GB ARC + 4GB
There is a patch to make tmpfs memory management more strict (more
aggressive), and set default partition size to half of all memory.
More information about the freebsd-current