On 28/05/12 17:48, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 05/28/2012 04:46 AM, Serge wrote: >> The truth is that tmpfs IS FASTER in some cases. The problem is that >> *nobody* can notice that on *real* applications. > Serge, I'm on your side of the discussion, but the above is simply > not truth. And by the way, that's not the issue. The issue is potential > breakage, which we want to avoid *at all costs*. > > Thomas > > I think this is a valid point. We should know what applications and workloads get a _measurable_ benefit by using tmpfs for /tmp instead of using a normal filesystem. If we are optimizing things for just a synthetic benchmark that does fsyncs on lot of small files then we are loosing the perspective of reality. We should have things on the table like the following to support the idea that tmpfs really gives any performance benefit in the day-to-day real-world-tasks of people and not only on synthetic benchmarks - Program X is a % faster when using tmpfs for /tmp - Compiling the Linux Kernel is a % faster when using tmpfs for /tmp - Task Z is a % faster when using tmpfs for /tmp - [...] Regards! -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez http://neutrino.es Igalia - Free Software Engineering http://www.igalia.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature