[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
> 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
> 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
> 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
More information about the SM-Discuss