Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!vecpyr!amd!amdcad!decwrl!pyramid!gould9!ncr-sd!sdcsvax!hutch
From: hutch@sdcsvax.UUCP (Jim Hutchison)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: buffer cache vs. file system reliability
Message-ID: <2001@sdcsvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 23-Aug-86 06:28:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.2001
Posted: Sat Aug 23 06:28:31 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Aug-86 19:44:06 EDT
Reply-To: hutch@sdcsvax.UUCP (Jim Hutchison)
Organization: UCSD EMU Project (Educational Microcomputer Unix)
Lines: 14

<>

Back to ram disks, why bother to cache blocks from a ram disk?  Seems
like a very big waste.  If it was somehow possible to make all the
writes to a named fs physical (hack the strategy??), then you could
have a /tmp that ran fast, and did not impair the buffer cache nor
*Get synced*.  You certainly would not want to have editor files in
that fs (could use /usr/tmp instead), but for fast access temporary
files it could be a win overall.

-- 
    Jim Hutchison   UUCP:	{dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!hutch
		    ARPA:	Hutch@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
	"The fog crept in on little cats feet" -CS