Re: Moving /tmp to tmpfs makes it useful
On 2012-05-25 14:49:14 +0100, Will Daniels wrote:
> On 25/05/12 13:52, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> >So what? If you write to a normal file system, it goes into the page
> >cache, which is pretty much the same as writing into tmpfs. In both
> >cases if you have swap configured, the data will get pushed to disk;
> That's not at all the same, the page cache is more temporary, it's getting
> flushed to disk pretty quick if memory is tight (presumably) but in the same
> situation using tmpfs going to swap is surely going to be more disruptive?
Why wouldn't there be a FS option to have a different policy for
specific directories, like /tmp? e.g. avoid write-back to disk
except when needed (because of lack of RAM). In such a way, the
behavior would be similar to tmpfs, without the restriction on
the tmpfs size, i.e. this would be more flexible for the user.
BTW, I wish there were a document summarizing all these discussions.
Vincent Lefèvre <email@example.com> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)