On 2023-04-19 08:34:50 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > There is one downside to /tmp on tmpfs: it eats RAM. You gotta > have some of it (currently I've 9G free on / and 16G RAM).
True, and when I used tmpfs in the past (in 2012), I got many failures due to lack of space (because of limited RAM). > That's the only one I can read between the lines in the above > linked post. Do you see any other? > > The upsides aren't that spectacular either. If you've enough > RAM, file system caching is so good that tmpfs will only be > marginally faster: The write path to the disk will be a bit > clearer. There will be a bit less CPU usage if your /tmp would > be otherwise on a LUKS partition (mine would). "marginally faster" is incorrect, but this probably depends on how fast the disk is. For the MPFR svn-to-git conversion with reposurgeon 2 years ago, I had to use /dev/shm (tmpfs) because it was awfully slow on /tmp (but the SSD disk was rather slow: the new one I got several months later was about 50 times as fast, IIRC). -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
