Re: LVM root?
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 09:35:54AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> I thought etch now defaulted to tmpfs for /tmp meaning putting it in ram
> where it is faster, and backed by swap if needed.
Isn't there a performance hit doing this? If a programme is putting stuff
in /tmp to otherwise reduce its memory footprint, does it make sense to
circumvent that and put /tmp back in memory? If a program is accessing
both its /tmp file and another working file, with /tmp effectivly in
swap, one has no controll over which spindle that page is on (assuming
more than one disk) whereas if /tmp and /var/tmp are on a different
spindle from the working directory they could be accessed at the same
I wouldn't want to use /tmp for a temporary iso file. If I get the iso
created and then have a power failure, I don't want it gone when
rebooting cleans out /tmp. I thought that's what /var/tmp is for.
Disk space is cheap. Other than saving space in /tmp when its not
needed, is there an advantage to having it use tmpfs instead of a
'normal' device (partition, LV, whatever)?
- Re: LVM root?
- From: Lennart Sorensen <firstname.lastname@example.org>