On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, bert hubert wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 08:01:16AM -0500, Jim Nance wrote:
>
> > I have done some benchmarks which show that Linux does not need a tmpfs like
> > filesystem for performance. The benchmark numbers were in one of the linux
> > FAQs at one time, but I dont remember which one.
>
> Matt Dillon of freebsd & diablo fame claims that their 'mfs' is
> still an order of magnitude faster, so tmpfs may have some merit yet.
Faster than UFS, maybe, but ext2 is about as fast as mfs.
The biggest speed improvement we can get is by writing
lazy-allocate code for the page cache, so that file data
doesn't ever hit the FS code when the file is temporary
and there's not much memory pressure.
And when there is memory pressure, what's wrong with using
a filesystem as backing store for files?
regards,
Rik
-- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength.http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:38 EST