On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 08:14:10PM +0300, Serge wrote: > 2012/5/25 Neil Williams wrote: > > Different hardware -> different software selection. > > I don't understand your point. I could understand it if we were choosing > among benefits that most users get from /tmp being on disk and /tmp being > on tmpfs. But there're NO benefits in having /tmp on tmpfs. It works (not > works better, just works somehow) only on systems with a lot of RAM.
This is plain wrong. NO benefits for tmpfs? "just works somehow"? Whatever other arguments you had, the statement above tells me you only look at _your_ use case and dismiss all others, or that you don't understand the different behaviours of fsync() (with enough memory, that is) on tmpfs, HDDs and SSDs. And no, "I really can't think of any popular application" is not a valid discussion point. iustin, happily using /tmp on tmpfs since many, many years ago, and configuring it as such on all Debian machines he installs (of various roles). -- 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/20120525202638.ga19...@teal.hq.k1024.org
