On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 09:29:46AM +0300, Serge wrote: > 2012/6/1 Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > All the complaints about /tmp as tmpfs come down to one simple issue: > > The size of the tmpfs isn't chosen well. > > Mounting /tmp to tmpfs not just breaks a lot of apps and reduces system > stability, but it actually does nothing else. You get no benefits from > /tmp being on tmpfs. > That's the complaint: the change makes something bad and nothing good. > > > Even without load it is much faster because fsync() becomes a NOP. > > Yes, it is. So it's a good idea to use tmpfs for some apps, that > heavily use fsync() on files that fit in RAM. But... wait... no app > is heavily using fsync() on files in /tmp. So it's useless to put > /tmp on tmpfs.
It takes one application using fsync on any file in / for all files in /tmp to be flushed to disk if it's the same filesystem. It doesn't need to be the application using /tmp doing fsync. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120605064244.ga15...@glandium.org
