[SM-Discuss] Smallest Source Mage

Sergey A. Lipnevich sergeyli at pisem.net
Mon Jul 29 23:11:06 EDT 2002


Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ <cerise at littlegreenmen.armory.com>:

>    I'm looking for the other 'valid' point of view
here.  I've asked
> several times about what makes tmpfs a reasonable option.
>    I've heard two things.  Fragmentation and ease of
removal.
>    Fragmentation hasn't had any valid factors lent to it.
>    As for ease of removal, I mentioned a couple of
different ways that
> it could be done as trivially as tmpfs in a previous
post.  Not to
> mention that cleaning up can be done trivially as an
rm -rf in the
> background.
>    I'm all for seeing both sides of the issue. 
That's why I'm asking
> people to present benchmarks and other assorted data
to prove their
> points.
>    Thus far, that hasn't happened.  Usually that's
symptomatic of one
> side being right and the other one not.  If my
willingness to call a

Phil, why don't you give us a break? There are other
reasons why nobody's rushing to provide you with data.
I for one suggested a strategy for you to use to
measure performance of either solution. Why don't you
sit down and try it?
Another thing is, why do you expect people to agree
with a person who publicly admitted to running an
untested file system (XFS) and trashing a file with it,
but maintains using it because he thinks it's fast?
Try and argue with yourself. You don't need a list for
that.
Sorry.

--Sergey.



More information about the SM-Discuss mailing list