is TMPFS still highly experimental?

[Cy Schubert]

In message <CADLo83-s_3H8PbbxOPPxbe0m10U0U5JW-feB294dFs+Q3iTWvg at mail.gmail.c
om>
, Chris Rees writes:
> On 1 Oct 2011 16:41, "Benjamin Kaduk" <kaduk at mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 1 Oct 2011, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Is TMPFS still considered highly experimental? I notice a warning
> >> saying this was added in 2007:
> >>
> >> fs/tmpfs/tmpfs_vfsops.c:        printf("WARNING: TMPFS is considered
> >> to be a highly experimental "
> >>
> >> Since it's very old, I wonder if it still applies. After 4 years and
> >> 54 commits, can someone tell if the maturity of this file system has
> >> improved significantly?
> >
> >
> > This thread:
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2011-June/025475.html
> > has covered this topic somewhat.  Peter Holm (pho) is known for running
> pretty intensive filesystem (and other) stress tests, and did not come up
> with a whole lot of crashes.
> > Also,
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?&sort=none&text=tmpfs
> > is not too big, showing only a couple of new reports.
> > Mayhaps it is not "highly" experimental, but probably still experimental,
> at least.
> >
> 
> I've also not heard of anyone using it with zfs successfully- it tends to
> shrink rapidly.

I use it with ZFS however, having been an OSF/1 (and subsequently Tru64) 
admin in a previous life, I use it with a limit of 200 MB (10x the amount 
that OSF/1 did). I've used the same limits when I was a Solaris admin to 
limit the exposure to accidental DoS attacks. With the tmpfs limit in place 
I've never seen it shrink. I think tmpfs limits are always a good idea.


-- 
Cheers,
Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert at komquats.com>
FreeBSD UNIX:  <cy at FreeBSD.org>   Web:  http://www.FreeBSD.org