Re: Moving /tmp to tmpfs is fine
2012/5/25 Neil Williams wrote:
> Do you not use swap?
I use it for suspend-to-disk.
> Yes you lose functionality but functionality takes up resources, so
> something has to give.
Which functionality will I lose by placing /tmp on the real disk?
> The vast majority of systems have large amounts of swap, so tmpfs never
> runs out until the swap space is full - it just gets very, very much
> slower.
Right, system will become unusable and user will press Reset button far
before that.
>> Assuming you've set your tmpfs size to 20% you need 2.5GB memory just
>> to "temporarily" unpack kernel sources and check for some files.
> And? The machines I use to unpack and repack kernel packages handle that
> quite nicely.
Since we're talking about default settings, you assume default debian
system to have at least 2.5GB just to be able to unpack kernels?
> Different hardware -> different software selection.
I don't understand your point. I could understand it if we were choosing
among benefits that most users get from /tmp being on disk and /tmp being
on tmpfs. But there're NO benefits in having /tmp on tmpfs. It works (not
works better, just works somehow) only on systems with a lot of RAM. And
nobody still named any popular programs, that can definitely benefit from
that. While there're many programs that either break or may render system
unstable.
Yes, /tmp on tmpfs works in many cases. But /tmp on disk works always.
Why would we select the worst of these two options?
I don't understand, do you suggest to break some applications and make
system less stable for nothing? What's a good part?
--
Serge
Reply to: