Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!ho95e!wcs
From: wcs@ho95e.UUCP (#Bill_Stewart)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: RAM disk vs paging + buffer cache
Message-ID: <792@ho95e.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 17-Aug-86 22:09:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: ho95e.792
Posted: Sun Aug 17 22:09:10 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Aug-86 03:02:50 EDT
References: <514@opus.nbires.UUCP> <240@whuxcc.UUCP> <244@desint.UUCP>
Reply-To: wcs@ho95e.UUCP (Bill Stewart 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs HO 2G202)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 19

In article <244@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes:
>In article <240@whuxcc.UUCP> judah@whuxcc.UUCP (Judah Greenblatt) writes:
>>generates physical I/O operations, even when the buffer-cache is empty:
>> 	- create a file >> 	- write 1 block of data >> 	- close it
>This is an unfortunate side effect of the file system reliability
>enhancements that were done for System V (III?).  This is the unfortunate
>reality of reliability--it trades off against performance.  In this case,
>.........., but most users seem >to feel the reliability is worth it.
>> -  One thought on why you might not want to let the block buffers
>>    do all the work: can you imagine what a 'sync' would
>>    cost on a system with 20,000 block buffers?
>Also, can you imagine what it would be like to crash WITHOUT sync-ing on a
>system with 20,000 block buffers?  

Is there any way to tell the system "Don't bother syncing /tmp"?  On
my systems, I let fsck rebuild /tmp anyway; I'd rather trade the
reliability of /tmp for speed and only sync for garbage collection.
-- 
# Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G-202, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs