On Tue, Apr 14, 2015, at 23:18, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2015-04-14 13:26:16 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > Yeah, that's a bad habit to have as it slows down way too many > > utilities (lots of stuff benefit for extremely lightweight > > ultra-fast tmpfs in /tmp and $TMPDIR, from "sort" to gcc without > > -pipe), but it is indeed widespread. > > Can't disk caching be as fast as tmpfs (or almost)?
Never subestimate the needs of a persistent filesystem to care for metadata and data safety, unless it has an "eatmydata" mount option or something to that effect. But it really depends on the workload and filesystems involved. You should test your usecase. Yes, there are a few workloads where ext4 or XFS should be able to come somewhat close to the performance of tmpfs. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <h...@debian.org> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1429101144.3686512.254022569.24042...@webmail.messagingengine.com
