Clifton Royston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For a large temporary file system which must hold short-lived files, > mostly small but occasionally several very large ones (e.g. 100MB+), is > it better for performance and stability if this file system: > > 1) resides on a swap-backed MFS and trusts the OS to swap out > low-priority blocks if needed under RAM pressure, or > > 2) on a regular UFS and trusts the OS to buffer as many blocks as > possible into RAM when RAM is free?
the former, provided you have enough RAM. A swap-backed MFS will only swap out when it has to, while a UFS will always write out changes after a while. > I temporarily enlarged it to 256MB which is working, but as I worked > out the worst case scenario, I realized it really would need to be > nearly 1GB to handle multiple zip-bombs each hitting the 100MB size > limit. This makes me wonder if it's wise to specify a 1GB MFS on a > system with only 1GB RAM, or wiser to just revert to a regular file > system? RAM is cheap. Toss in a couple extra gig and set up a 2 GB MFS. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
