Re: Moving /tmp to tmpfs makes it useful
2012/5/26 Miles Bader wrote:
>> I'm asking for *popular* apps, that create files in /tmp, *never put
>> large files* there, and become *noticeably* faster with /tmp on tmpfs?
> Is that even the issue, for the most part? My impression is that
> using tmpfs is just logistically simpler and safer -- it can be
> mounted very early, doesn't muck with the (possibly small or r/o) root
> fs, makes it simple to limit temp space without a separate partition,
> etc.
We're talking about *default* settings. That what makes it an issue.
It won't be an issue if most debian installations were on a small
read-only root and most of them wanted /tmp to be tmpfs because of that.
But it's not. I doubt major part of debians use r/o root and even if they
do, not all of them would like to use tmpfs for that case. Most servers
dedicate separate partitions to /tmp. I had it mount-bound to /home/tmp
in that case. There're many solutions that are fast, use fewer memory,
support quotas... Why tmpfs?
What makes things worse: there're popular programs and popular usecases
that break because of that. It may slow down or even freeze the system
because of heavy swapping. So there must be a strong good reason
surpassing these problems.
I assume people supporting /tmp on tmpfs actually use it that way.
What I don't understand is why they're arguing that "it's not that bad"
instead of just saying why it's good? Does it makes something faster?
What? How many seconds faster? Does it reduces disks operations?
In what cases and how much?
If so many people tested RAMTMP and found no good reasons for it,
then maybe let's change it back to "no" by default? That's what testing
is for anyway?
--
Serge
Reply to: