On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 08:03:16AM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2006-06-02 18:07, Kris Kennaway <kris_at_obsecurity.org> wrote: > >On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 04:50:06PM -0500, Craig Boston wrote: > >>On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 12:35:27AM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > >>> Ok, I'll prepare a patch that enables async and disables -M. We > >>> should also document the fact that tmpmfs="YES" and varmfs="YES" > >>> in rc.conf may require the presence of at least one swap device > >>> by default, and point the users to -M with a warning if they run > >>> FreeBSD without a swap device but still want to use tmpmfs or > >>> varmfs :) > >> > >> I may be mistaken, but from my (brief) reading of the code it seems > >> to me that perhaps "swap-backed" isn't an entirely accurate term. > >> More like "VM-backed", with the understanding that VM is (usually) > >> backed by swap. > >> > >> I think if you don't have any swap configured, a swap-backed md > >> will be no worse off than a memory-backed one would. > > > > Yeah, it's kind of a poorly chosen name. > > Should we still revert the default from using -M for tmpmfs="YES" and > varmfs="YES" in rc.conf? Someone should test it in a situation without swap configured (including what is the failure mode when you run out of memory - probably a panic again), but it "should" be fine (i.e. behaves the same or better than malloc in all situations). Kris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:56 UTC