2012/5/28 Thomas Goirand wrote: >> The truth is that tmpfs IS FASTER in some cases. The problem is that >> *nobody* can notice that on *real* applications. > > Serge, I'm on your side of the discussion, but the above is simply > not truth.
You mean you know some real applications becoming noticeably faster having /tmp on tmpfs? > And by the way, that's not the issue. The issue is potential > breakage, which we want to avoid *at all costs*. That does not work. I tried that. When I say "Hey, a lot of software breaks because of your change", I get the answer "It's not my change in fault, it's the software, go fix it". This is exactly what I got in that thread, by the way. But when I say "Hey, your change have broken a lot of software and brought nothing good", then people start thinking, why should they mess with fixing a lot of software, if they get nothing in return anyway. This is what we have with "/tmp on tmpfs" change. -- Serge -- 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/CAOVenErJhn54esbuqxn6HHARXPJMeDj4WzxCuSf3KXm=n=_...@mail.gmail.com
