| 1 |
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:55:43 -0400 |
| 2 |
Richard Freeman <rich@××××××××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I occassionally get swaps, but that is no big deal. In the worst case |
| 6 |
> swapping is no worse than not using tmpfs at all, and in the typical or |
| 7 |
> best cases it is far better. It really is a no-lose scenario. If |
| 8 |
> something leaves junk lying around in /var/tmp then it just gets swapped |
| 9 |
> out and never gets swapped back in - again no worse than if it were |
| 10 |
> written to disk in the first place. Just make sure you have plenty of |
| 11 |
> swap space if your physical RAM is limited. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
My swap space is set for 8G, and it is also located at about |
| 15 |
the center of the disk platter, which supposedly will give the |
| 16 |
fastest I/O performance. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
However, I am not clear on how tmpfs will fail. If the tmpfs mount |
| 19 |
becomes filled or exceeds the file limit, since it is essentially just |
| 20 |
another disk partition shouldn't it produce a "No more space left on device" |
| 21 |
error? Or is the system designed to extend the tmpfs through swapping? |
| 22 |
The latter option doesn't seem right, but everyone still refers to such |
| 23 |
behavior. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Frank Peters |
Archives