On 06/25/2014 09:35 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2014-06-25 15:17, Herbert Graeber wrote:
Am 24.06.2014 15:24, schrieb Carlos E. R.:
more work to change from tmpfs to a real disk. So tmps is a good default for most users on actual hardware.
I think not.
+1
My /tmp is normally small, at this moment, 300 MB. But I'd rather have that RAM available for programs, and I don't know when a program may need way more. For instance, k3b, uses tmp for temporary DVD iso creation. YaST backup creates the backup image there, and THIS can be huge. Applications like mozilla do some downloads there, too.
Besides, I prefer /tmp to be persistent, in case of reboot or crashes.
As they say "YMMV" As I say "Context is everything"
I would consider a tmpfs only if I could limit the RAM usage to something small, and force overflow to swap (or disk directory) early. That is, as a specialized disk cache for a special directory. An hybrid.
Years ago, Mike Tilson wrote a disk driver for V7 UNIX that kept the inode table in memory. Its since been outdated by better inode caching and by pathname caching and more. Perhaps what we need isn't so much a tmpfs as a better trade-off of the way memory is used. Perhaps a FUSE can do this, but it would need to be metricated. Many imaginative ideas don't hold up in the real world. -- /"\ \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML Mail / \ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org