Re: Summary: Moving /tmp to tmpfs makes it useless
Serge wrote:
> 2012/6/10 Adam Borowski wrote:
> >> Some people asked for a thread summary. So here it is.
> > Seriously, can't you even read what's written to you?
>
> Yes, I know it was a biased summary. So as yours. But there's a difference
> between mine and yours. Mine is based on some real-world applications,
You've posted blatantly false claims. If you post claims like "1+1
equals 2 because the moon is made of cheese", then you're a moron, even
if 1+1 does equal 2. And even if some of your arguments are valid, if
you can't yourself tell the valid arguments apart from the crackpot
claims that doesn't help your credibility.
> Do you dismiss the theory (confirmed by Uoti Urpala test script) that
> tmpfs+swap INCREASE number of writes and are hence bad for SSD?
I think what the script shows is that there can be significant problems
using tmpfs to hold large amounts of data, even if you have a lots of
swap so that running out is not an issue. It doesn't show that the
number of writes would increase on average.
In general you seem to be quite clueless about the actual behavior of
cache/swap, but you've still continued to make various claims about it.
Reply to: