On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 01:15:01PM +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: > On 19/04/2023 11:30, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > That's what I meant above with "assuming you want a tmpfs..." > > Some arguments for consideration may be found in > > Summary: Moving /tmp to tmpfs makes it useless > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/06/msg00311.html > > That is linked from https://wiki.debian.org/SSDOptimization/#Reduction_of_SSD_write_frequency_via_RAMDISK What I didn't like from the post is that it doesn't clearly state the downsides. Too much handwaving and repetition that "there are downsides" (well, duh), that "some applications rely on... " (what?). Then he goes on to explain alternatives. There is one downside to /tmp on tmpfs: it eats RAM. You gotta have some of it (currently I've 9G free on / and 16G RAM). That's the only one I can read between the lines in the above linked post. Do you see any other? The upsides aren't that spectacular either. If you've enough RAM, file system caching is so good that tmpfs will only be marginally faster: The write path to the disk will be a bit clearer. There will be a bit less CPU usage if your /tmp would be otherwise on a LUKS partition (mine would). With a modern (2010s!) laptop not much to write home about. Of course, I wouldn't propose to set it as a default for a distro. Cheers -- t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature