On Sun, 15 Jun 2008, Kostik Belousov wrote: KB> > Also, I can observe tmpfs is doing non-optimal; I did not found KB> > straight ways to set block/frag size; I suppose for most tmpfs usage KB> > they should be decreases to the lowest values, such as 4k/512 -- what KB> > do you think? KB> Block and fragment size concepts are not applicable to the tmpfs; KB> basically, this is the point for having such fs in the system. Each file KB> on the tmpfs is presented as the swap-backed vm object. KB> KB> Besides the set of the (mostly) known problems with correctness and KB> stability, current implementation has quite unefficient implementation KB> of the mmap and buffer cache interaction. The vm object (and pages) used KB> for the vm operations are copied from the backing vm object instead of KB> being reused. This means that we get essentially twice as much memory KB> used, and copying. This, actually, was simple observations: svn base tree over ZFS comsumes a bit less than 2G, and after rsync -aH to tmpfs, repoted by du, it seems to eat approx 4G (with comparable inode cound as reported by find) Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] [ FreeBSD committer: marck_at_FreeBSD.org ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck_at_rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------Received on Sun Jun 15 2008 - 19:12:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:32 UTC