Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ <cerise AT littlegreenmen.armory.com>
  • To: Source Mage Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs
  • Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:49:59 -0700 (PDT)

It seems to me that the speed of the native filesystem over tmpfs has
been established.

I suspect memory usage is also smaller using the native filesystem.

So that leaves the one "possible" problem of disk fragmentation. Have
any of the people who have run the test on their system noticed that
number climbing to an unreasonable amount?

If the answer is "no" (which I suspect it is), then what's the
advantage of tmpfs again?

-Phil/CERisE

P.S. To whoever it was who said that their motto was "Screw people
with 386s". I run a dual P-III in actuality. I also recall similar
comments by those at Microsoft about people with slower processors.
Perhaps you'd like to align yourself with them in the name of lamer,
bloatier programming?

Eric Sandall said:

> tmpfs
> -----
> real 164m7.130s
> user 123m5.620s
> sys 6m53.460s
>
> reiserfs
> --------
> real 162m14.268s
> user 121m1.080s
> sys 7m25.180s
>
> Here're my times on an Intel Pentium III-550 with 768Mb RAM.
>
> -One of Three
>
> --
> Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
> sandalle AT hellhound.homeip.net | http://www.sourcemage.org
> http://hellhound.homeip.net/~sandalle | SystAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @
> WSU
> ICQ: 667348 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
>










Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page