[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Moving /tmp to tmpfs is fine

2012/5/25 Iustin Pop wrote:

> And no, "I really can't think of any popular application" is not a valid
> discussion point.

But there're already popular applications and usecases that break because
of that. It can render the system unstable because of heavy swap usage.
So there must be some strong point to still use it despite those problems.
There must be some very popular application, that do not break because
of that feature and even becomes better.

Otherwise, if this feature causes problems to some applications and no
benefits to others, what's the point in using it?

> This is plain wrong. NO benefits for tmpfs? "just works somehow"?

Ok, I must be missing some obvious benefit. Please, help me and name it.
But real one not theoretical. Some real (and popular, since we're talking
about defaults) application that becomes faster (or better in any other
way) because of /tmp being on tmpfs. All the tests showed tmpfs being no
better than ext3 so far.

> you only look at _your_ use case and dismiss all others, or that you
> don't understand the different behaviours of fsync() (with enough memory,
> that is) on tmpfs, HDDs and SSDs.

I don't dismiss them. But we talk about *defaults*. And I don't know
any real applications, heavily fsync()ing files in /tmp, that people are
expected to use by default. Can you name some?

> iustin, happily using /tmp on tmpfs since many, many years ago

Heh... A lot of people use it. I guess most of them have seen "/tmp", then
they were seing "tmpfs", and decided that "tmpfs is the fs for /tmp", it
seemed natural to them. They never really thought, whether it's good or
bad idea, or that there may be some better ideas. It was just natural to
use it.

And when I say, "hey, that's a bad idea", I hurt them (I'm sorry for that).
They start arguing that "it's not that bad as you say, look, not everything
is broken, many programs still work". They can't say why it's better than
using disk because they never though about that. It was just "natural"...

That's just my guess, of course.


Reply to: