Re: /tmp in memory vs on disk
- From: Darren Dunham <ddunham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:33:36 GMT
Alexander J. Maidak <ajmaidak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
At my site we put /tmp on a disk slice. I've learned that its a more
common for Solaris to be set up with /tmp as a memory resident
filesystem. For what reasons might we be better off putting /tmp in
memory?
The workload associated with /tmp often is for a lot of file creation,
small amount of data transferred, and file deletion. Compilers are
rather famous for doing a lot of that.
On UFS, the metadata operations are synchronous, so you will have to
wait for seeks (possibly to different parts of the disk) before you can
continue. On tmpfs, the operations are *significantly* faster. Also,
since the data within /tmp is (hopefully!) not important, or at least
easily recreated, then it's appropriate for backing in memory which will
be lost in a crash.
By using UFS, you lose some amount of performance in /tmp, but also free
some swap space for other use. I would generally not recommend moving
to UFS /tmp unless you have a specific reason to do so.
--
Darren Dunham ddunham@xxxxxxxx
Senior Technical Consultant TAOS http://www.taos.com/
Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area
< This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >
.
- References:
- /tmp in memory vs on disk
- From: Alexander J. Maidak
- /tmp in memory vs on disk
- Prev by Date: Re: Strange memory interleave
- Next by Date: Re: respawning a script from inittab doubts
- Previous by thread: Re: /tmp in memory vs on disk
- Next by thread: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 now available
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
