From owner-FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org  Wed Jun 10 07:29:40 1998
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by jaz.jp.freebsd.org (8.8.8+3.0Wbeta13/8.7.3) id HAA12180;
	Wed, 10 Jun 1998 07:29:40 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (daemon@smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134])
	by jaz.jp.freebsd.org (8.8.8+3.0Wbeta13/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA12175
	for <tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 07:29:37 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from tlambert@usr01.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA07111;
	Tue, 9 Jun 1998 15:29:29 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr01.primenet.com(206.165.6.201)
 via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd007004; Tue Jun  9 15:29:22 1998
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
	by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA17328;
	Tue, 9 Jun 1998 15:29:12 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199806092229.PAA17328@usr01.primenet.com>
To: phk@critter.freebsd.dk (Poul-Henning Kamp)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 22:29:12 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: sbabkin@dcn.att.com, itojun@iijlab.net, mike@smith.net.au,
        core@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org, tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <22166.897426445@critter.freebsd.dk> from "Poul-Henning Kamp" at Jun 9, 98 11:07:25 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Distribute: distribute [version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel=24]
X-Sequence: FreeBSD-tech-jp 1515
Subject: [FreeBSD-tech-jp 1515] Re: new config
Errors-To: owner-FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Sender: owner-FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org

> >> 	5. Delete files no longer needed on the MFS to preserve RAM
> >> 
> >Alternative approach: mount the traditional root filesystem
> >on /, and the config-filesystem on /stand or something like.
> 
> That would take more magic, which doesn't buy us any advantage
> that I can see.  There even is a performance gain in having
> the / directory live in ram.

One thing that would buy something is to mount an fs that looks like:

	/
		/dev

On /, end then union mount the actual root on /, leaving the devfs
exposed through the union.

The / directory would be in RAM, but it would be in RAM in the devfs
hierarchy.

This would also reduce the init complexity, since init should not
be responsible for the devfs mounts anyway.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
