> >1. It is a lot faster for a lot of stuff, as long as your kernel has > >proper swapping behavior. This happens because tmpfs can avoid a great > >deal of costly operations that other filesystems with backing store need > >to perform (such as the need to keep metadata in sync on the backing > >store). > > > >2. It will waste more virtual memory space than your regular filesystem > >with a backing store, as it needs to keep all data in virtual memory > >(even if it happens to be swapped). This *can* be a problem on 32-bit > >systems.
On 26.03.07 18:41, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote: > Interesting. Is there any downside? if you (or your users if there are any) use /tmp for storing junk, you'll have less of memory. But after a few reboots it should stop > Why isn't this default? there are still people (programs?) who don't know that /tmp is for TEMPORARY files and use ti that way. Also, filesystem design is usually on system administrator who does not know about these possibilities. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. M$ Win's are shit, do not use it ! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
