On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:27:31 -0600 Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 10:15:22PM +0100, RW wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:28:09 +0200 (CEST) > > Oliver Fromme <o...@lurza.secnetix.de> wrote: > > > Depending on the size of installed RAM, /tmp could also > > > be a memory disk by default. > > > > I don't see why it should depend on the amount of RAM, since it > > would normally be swap-backed. > > It should depend on the amount of RAM because putting /tmp in memory > takes away from the RAM available to the rest of the system. If your > system typically runs processes that consume a lot of RAM (like > Firefox, ha ha), your system could bog down a lot during typical use > if you use a RAM disk for /tmp without considering how much RAM you > have and need to use. By default, I think, /tmp should be on the > hard drive -- perhaps with an option when partitioning to set it up > to use RAM instead of physical storage. But it's not really a true RAM disk unless you use specify a malloc backed md device - which you should never do because it keeps the /tmp data in RAM unconditionally. tmpfs and swap-backed md devices normally used for /tmp are similar to conventional partitions in that they are disk-based storage cached in RAM. The difference is that because swap is ephemeral there's no need to commit updates to the backing store except for memory management reasons. Most people's /tmp requirements are pretty modest compared to modern swap and RAM sizes, but my /tmp device is ~3 times RAM size and it doesn't seem to create problems when I fill it. _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"