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.
tmpfs has some differences; I don't know about mfs, but solaris' tmpfs
stores all directory information in-core, only putting file inodes and
data in swappable pages, it definitely seems like it has advantages. It
also stores in-core structures in ADTs like b+trees and such.
It would be interesting to benchmark reiserfs against a memory
filesystem...
-- Jeff Garzik | Tact is the ability to tell a man Building 1024 | he has an open mind when he has a MandrakeSoft, Inc. | hole in his head. (-random fortune)- 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 - 21:00:36 EST