On Monday 19 December 2005 23:04, Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 01:49:37AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > > tmpfs stores run ressources in vm more efficiently (since they are > > otherwise in th buffercache and the filesystem). > > Quite the contrary. tmpfs needs vm space even if nobody needs the data > (thus, it could be evicted from the page cache if it were on a > disk-backed fs).
Whether it's on ext3 or tmpfs the end result is that it's in RAM if it's being used and on disk if it hasn't been used for a while. The only difference is whether "on disk" means a swap partition or an ext3 file system. On Tuesday 20 December 2005 10:47, Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 07:40:24PM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > > Yes, we are talking about a few pages in swap space at most. > > It's 55 pages (220k) on this machine (368k on ext3). And it's a simple > desktop with not much running state. The iPaQ machines I bought a few years ago have 64M of RAM. Every desktop machine produced in the last 6 years has significantly more than 64M. Currently I have some Pentium machines with 64M of RAM that I can't give away (they are so small that no-one wants them for free). 368K is an issue on a machine with 8M of RAM, it's an annoyance if you have 16M, beyond about 32M it stops being a problem. Incidentally if 368K of memory is a problem for you then you should probably stop using Ext3. Ext2 uses less RAM (and that's RAM for non-pagable data). -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
