Re: shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable

Re: shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable

[Dan Kegel]

Albert D. Cahalan (acahalan@cs.uml.edu) wrote:
> Christoph Rohland writes: 
> > I am quite open about naming, but "shm" is not appropriate any more 
> > since the fs does a lot more than shared memory. Solaris calles this 
> > "tmpfs" but I did not want to 'steal' their name and I also do not 
> > think that it's a very good name. 
> 
> Admins already know what "tmpfs" means, so you should just call 
> your filesystem that. I know it isn't a pretty name, but in the 
> interest of reducing confusion, you should use the existing name. 
> 
> Don't think of it as just "for /tmp". It is for temporary storage. 
> The name is a reminder that you shouldn't store archives in tmpfs. 
> 
> Again for compatibility, Sun's size option would be useful. 

I agree with Albert; if it does the same thing as Sun's tmpfs,
let's call it tmpfs, and use the same options.

- Dan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable

[Christoph Rohland]

Dominik Kubla <dominik.kubla@uni-mainz.de> writes:

> Well, it's tmpfs not only on SUN but for *BSD too.  So i guess we should
> follow the pack and use this name to avoid yet another "it's called this
> under that Unix and this under the other and something else under Linux"
> case.

So does *BSD also have the size parameter?

Greetings
                Christoph

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable

[James H. Cloos Jr.]

>>>>> "Christoph" == Christoph Rohland <cr@sap.com> writes:

Christoph> OK right now I see two alternatives for the name: "tmpfs"
Christoph> for the SUN admins and "vmfs" for expressing what it does
Christoph> and to be in line with "ramfs". Any votes?

I think vmfs is the better choice.  Not to be gratuitously
incompatable with sun, but there is no guarentee linux's
implementation and sun's will be or remain compatable, so it really
doesn't hurt to choose a name which is more descriptive rather than
that used by someone else's product -- even if the other product is
widely deployed and understood.

>> I'd prefer k for ISO standard and K for base-2.  Of course m isn't
>> millibytes, but that isn't horrible.

Christoph> No, I would go for base-2 only. That's what we typically
Christoph> mean with K and M in the IT world. To be case sensitive is
Christoph> IMHO overkill and confusing.

Unquestionably the Right Thing.  VM is after all being measured, and
RAM is always measured in binary.  (OK, I just *know* someone will
provide a counter-example disproving that assertion -- perhaps the old
36 bit systems?  Or core?  But are there any modern counter-examples?)

-JimC
-- 
James H. Cloos, Jr.  <http://jhcloos.com/public_key>     1024D/ED7DAEA6 
<cloos@jhcloos.com>  E9E9 F828 61A4 6EA9 0F2B  63E7 997A 9F17 ED7D AEA6
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable

[Christoph Rohland]

Hi Albert,

"Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> writes:

> Admins already know what "tmpfs" means, so you should just call
> your filesystem that. I know it isn't a pretty name, but in the
> interest of reducing confusion, you should use the existing name.
> 
> Don't think of it as just "for /tmp". It is for temporary storage.
> The name is a reminder that you shouldn't store archives in tmpfs.

OK right now I see two alternatives for the name: "tmpfs" for the SUN
admins and "vmfs" for expressing what it does and to be in line with
"ramfs". Any votes?

> Again for compatibility, Sun's size option would be useful.
> 
> -o size=111222333      Size in bytes, rounded up by page size.
> -o size=111222k        Size in kilobytes (base-2 or ISO standard?)
> -o size=111m           Size in megabytes (base-2 or ISO standard?)
> 
> I'd prefer k for ISO standard and K for base-2.
> Of course m isn't millibytes, but that isn't horrible.

No, I would go for base-2 only. That's what we typically mean with K
and M in the IT world. To be case sensitive is IMHO overkill and
confusing.

Greetings
                Christoph 

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable

[David Ford]

Christoph Rohland wrote:

> What do you think about "vmfs"? This probably reflects its nature
> better than swapfs.

That sounds applicable and pretty good.

-d

-- ---NOTICE

-- fwd: fwd: fwd: type emails will be deleted automatically.
      "There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are
      virtue and talents", Thomas Jefferson [1742-1826], 3rd US President



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable

[Albert D. Cahalan]

Christoph Rohland writes:

> I am quite open about naming, but "shm" is not appropriate any more
> since the fs does a lot more than shared memory. Solaris calles this
> "tmpfs" but I did not want to 'steal' their name and I also do not
> think that it's a very good name.

Admins already know what "tmpfs" means, so you should just call
your filesystem that. I know it isn't a pretty name, but in the
interest of reducing confusion, you should use the existing name.

Don't think of it as just "for /tmp". It is for temporary storage.
The name is a reminder that you shouldn't store archives in tmpfs.

Again for compatibility, Sun's size option would be useful.

-o size=111222333      Size in bytes, rounded up by page size.
-o size=111222k        Size in kilobytes (base-2 or ISO standard?)
-o size=111m           Size in megabytes (base-2 or ISO standard?)

I'd prefer k for ISO standard and K for base-2.
Of course m isn't millibytes, but that isn't horrible.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable

[Christoph Rohland]

David Ford <david@linux.com> writes:

> Hmm, ok, what are the activities that use this other than shm?

You can e.g. use it for your /tmp filesystem. there seem to be some
people out there which used ramfs for that...

What do you think about "vmfs"? This probably reflects its nature
better than swapfs.

Greetings
                Christoph

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable

[David Ford]

> It is a filesystem which lives in RAM and can swap out. SYSV shm and
> shared anonymous maps are still build on top of this (The config
> option only disables the part not needed for this).
>
> I am quite open about naming, but "shm" is not appropriate any more
> since the fs does a lot more than shared memory. Solaris calles this
> "tmpfs" but I did not want to 'steal' their name and I also do not
> think that it's a very good name.
>
> So any suggestions for a better name?

Hmm, ok, what are the activities that use this other than shm?

-d

-- ---NOTICE

-- fwd: fwd: fwd: type emails will be deleted automatically.
      "There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are
      virtue and talents", Thomas Jefferson [1742-1826], 3rd US President



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable

[Christoph Rohland]

David Ford <david@linux.com> writes:

> Now...is this shared memory or swap?  If it's swap, why is it
> different than a swapfile?  If you are intending the shmem be called
> swapfs, I personally thing that it'll cause a significant amount of
> confusion.

It is a filesystem which lives in RAM and can swap out. SYSV shm and
shared anonymous maps are still build on top of this (The config
option only disables the part not needed for this).

I am quite open about naming, but "shm" is not appropriate any more
since the fs does a lot more than shared memory. Solaris calles this
"tmpfs" but I did not want to 'steal' their name and I also do not
think that it's a very good name.

So any suggestions for a better name?

Greetings
                Christoph

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable

[David Ford]

Christoph Rohland wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The appended patch (additional to my read/write support patch) makes
> the shm filesystem configurable and renames it to the more sensible
> name swapfs. Since the fs type "shm" is quite established with 2.4 I
> register that name also.

Now...is this shared memory or swap?  If it's swap, why is it different than a swapfile?  If you are intending the shmem be called swapfs, I
personally thing that it'll cause a significant amount of confusion.

-d


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/