Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:18:01 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: Memory Mapped Filesystem |
| |
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/
| |