On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:11:03 -0800 Vineet Kumar <vineet@doorstop.net> wrote: >* Chris Metzler (cmetzler@speakeasy.net) [040229 20:52]: >> Given that /tmp gets cleaned on reboot anyway, I can't think of a >> reason why it'd be a bad idea to use a tmpfs filesystem for /tmp. But >> the fact that I can't think of one doesn't mean there isn't. >> >> So . . .any reason why this would be a bad idea? > > Well, on a system with plenty of disk but a RAM shortage, it might take > away a more scarce resource. Still, this effect should be minimal, > since tmpfs uses paging to swap unused data to disk as needed. > > I've been using tmpfs on /tmp on many systems for a long time and have > noticed no ill effects. But like you say, that I haven't noticed any > doesn't mean that there aren't any, or especially that there's no > potential for any. > > Have you read filesystems/tmpfs.txt in the kernel docs? I have. But, even so, I wasn't convinced that something I didn't know about wasn't going to bite me in the butt. Thanks, -c -- Chris Metzler cmetzler@speakeasy.snip-me.net (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
Attachment:
pgpqMc5Zvbs5h.pgp
Description: PGP signature