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

[Christoph Rohland]

Hi Albert,

"Albert D. Cahalan" <[e-mail]> 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