> With tmpfs being in the tree for the last 2+ years (since OpenBSD 5.5), > I would like to ask, besides the "-P" option in mount_mfs, what is the > advantage of using mfs over tmpfs?
mfs is reliable. > It seems tmpfs has the following advantages: > > - Can grow or shrink; shrinks when files are erased. > - Can impose definite limits on number of inodes/files (then again, > this happens in mfs too). > - Dedicated memory structures used, rather than just plonking an > entire disk FS onto it. tmpfs has bugs, and as a result of those bugs, it has fewer and fewer users. > I have seen discussions here: > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=139935771507987&w=2 > > There is a claim that tmpfs is not as stable on that thread, but that > was back in 2014 when this was still new. Or, maybe there are fewer problem reports because fewer people use it, because those who tried to use it ran into problems and walked away from it? > I am willing to write a patch (or series of patches) to remove mfs > support if it is deemed to be unused/unnecessary; unfortunately I only > have access to an old amd64 machine for testing. Absolutely no way, that makes no sense.
