Re: Moving /tmp to tmpfs makes it useful
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 09:29:46AM +0300, Serge wrote:
> 2012/6/1 Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> > All the complaints about /tmp as tmpfs come down to one simple issue:
> > The size of the tmpfs isn't chosen well.
>
> Mounting /tmp to tmpfs not just breaks a lot of apps and reduces system
> stability, but it actually does nothing else. You get no benefits from
> /tmp being on tmpfs.
> That's the complaint: the change makes something bad and nothing good.
>
> > Even without load it is much faster because fsync() becomes a NOP.
>
> Yes, it is. So it's a good idea to use tmpfs for some apps, that
> heavily use fsync() on files that fit in RAM. But... wait... no app
> is heavily using fsync() on files in /tmp. So it's useless to put
> /tmp on tmpfs.
It takes one application using fsync on any file in / for all files in
/tmp to be flushed to disk if it's the same filesystem. It doesn't need
to be the application using /tmp doing fsync.
Mike
Reply to: