From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 02:03:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 02:03:09 -0500 Received: from smtpde02.sap-ag.de ([155.56.68.170]:23747 "EHLO smtpde02.sap-ag.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 02:03:07 -0500 From: Christoph Rohland To: Daniel Egger Cc: "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" Subject: Re: PATCH: allow percentile size of tmpfs (2.5.66 / 2.4.20-pre2) Organisation: Development SAP J2EE Engine Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 09:13:39 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1049221575.7628.14.camel@localhost> (Daniel Egger's message of "01 Apr 2003 20:26:15 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090016 (Oort Gnus v0.16) XEmacs/21.4 (Native Windows TTY Support (Windows), cygwin32) References: <3C6BEE8B5E1BAC42905A93F13004E8AB017DE982@mailse01.se.axis.com> <1049221575.7628.14.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SAP: out X-SAP: out Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Daniel, On 01 Apr 2003, Daniel Egger wrote: > Just curious: Why? I'm using tmpfs on these systems and I'm rather > satisfied with it; especially the option to limit the amount of > space makes it rather useful. According to the documentation ramfs > is most useful as an educational example how to write filesystems > not as a real filesystem... Uuh, now you are beating me with my old statements ;-) tmpfs has the drawback that the in memory data structures are bigger than ramfs'. But the core of tmpfs is always compiled in for anonymous shared memory. And it has size limits. So you are probably right, that tmpfs is the right choice. But you are arguing at a corner case. tmpfs is IMHO more often used on machines with swap and (at least for me) the use of swap as store for temporary data is the big point to use tmpfs. So the percentile should take swap into account. Greetings Christoph