On 2012-05-25 14:49:14 +0100, Will Daniels wrote: > On 25/05/12 13:52, Ted Ts'o wrote: > >So what? If you write to a normal file system, it goes into the page > >cache, which is pretty much the same as writing into tmpfs. In both > >cases if you have swap configured, the data will get pushed to disk; > > That's not at all the same, the page cache is more temporary, it's getting > flushed to disk pretty quick if memory is tight (presumably) but in the same > situation using tmpfs going to swap is surely going to be more disruptive?
Why wouldn't there be a FS option to have a different policy for specific directories, like /tmp? e.g. avoid write-back to disk except when needed (because of lack of RAM). In such a way, the behavior would be similar to tmpfs, without the restriction on the tmpfs size, i.e. this would be more flexible for the user. BTW, I wish there were a document summarizing all these discussions. -- Vincent Lefèvre <[email protected]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
