On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 10:37:13AM +0100, Mark Dixon wrote: > On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, William Hay wrote: > ... > >Remember tmpfs is not a ramdisk but the linux VFS layer without an attempt > >to provide real file system guarantees. It shouldn't be cached any more > >agressively than other filesystems under normal circumstances. Most of the > >arguments against it seem to be along the lines of "tmpfs uses swap > >therefore it must cause swapping" which doesn't seem to be the case. > > You've lived with this in production for some time now, so I should bow to > your judgement. > > But wouldn't you see a big difference in the amount of I/O activity when a > system sees a memory pressure, as non-tmpfs filesystems already have more of > the data on disk at that point?
Sure but on the other hand tmpfs is going to be less picky about where on disk that data has to go than most filesystems so less seeking. It doesn't seem to be an issue in practice as we're usually either don't have much memory pressure or the memory pressure is bad enough that anything tmpfs causes is small change. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ users mailing list users@gridengine.org https://gridengine.org/mailman/listinfo/users
