Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org> writes: > 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
For example runing "apt-get upgrade" while doing other stuff that uses /tmp. MfG Goswin -- 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/87y5o2chhx.fsf@frosties.localnet