> * Performance - much faster read/write access to data in /tmp Is this really true? Writes to /tmp will go to the page cache, which I believe is an identical path whether /tmp is backed by disk or by tmpfs. Similarly reads from /tmp will come from the page cache except where pages have been evicted in the case of a disk-backed /tmp, which cannot happen with tmpfs.
fsyncs on /tmp will be slower. Whether that's a problem depends on the application. But do we need to use tmpfs to eliminate that? Is there a better way of just swallowing syncs (eatmydata style), which would have the same effect? The big disadvantage of a tmpfs /tmp is that it cannot be paged out, and thus puts pressure on available system RAM. One failure case is a sysadmin expecting it to be backed to disk (and therefore be big), using it for something temporary, and then killing the system due to memory starvation. > * Security - sensitive data would be cleared from memory on boot, rather than written (leaked) to disk -- important for encryption scenarios If this is important then surely the user is encrypting the filesystem on disk anyway? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1533639 Title: [ubuntu-cpc] please make /tmp a tmpfs in RAM To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/livecd-rootfs/+bug/1533639/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
