Josselin Mouette wrote: > Oh stop, there is a difference: in a tmpfs the system doesn’t need to > commit the data on disk, and therefore can write it to disk whenever it > likes, especially when the disk is not too used. There is no need to > keep a journal nor to access the disk several times to update metadata. > Only unused data is written to disk. Which means a *huge* performance > improvement. Do the measurements yourself, it works with basically > anything that makes heavy use of /tmp.
I'm looking foward to a report from systems instrumented to track all accesses to /tmp, that analizes the frequency of accesses and gives numbers about just how huge this performance improvement is. Until we have such a report, why are we engaging in premature optimisation? -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
