Re: Idea: mount /tmp to tmpfs depending on free space and RAM
2012/6/2 Toni Mueller wrote:
>> Well, nobody named the benefits yet. Just the problems. There were a
> Well, I named one on 28th of May. Did you read it?
Sorry, I was trying to send not so many messages then, and I had not
answered yours. I guess you talk about these:
> Eg. web application's session data very frequently goes there, and/or
> the sysadmin wants it to go onto a tmpfs.
First, there can be rather large session directory, you probably don't
want ~365595 files to be always eating your RAM. Second, session data
MUST NOT be lost on reboot by default. So even without /tmp, sysadmin
should not put session data on tmpfs. There're different admins, however...
>> Q: gcc writes small files in /tmp
>> A: usually it does not, especially when used with -pipe option
> Changing all (generated?) Makefiles floating around out there, and
> getting the changes committed upstream to actually benefit from that is
> easier than using a tmpfs, of course.
No need to. You only need to add -pipe to your *FLAGS. You don't build
software with default autotools flags (-g -O2) anyway, I guess.