On 2014/05/06 09:28, Janne Johansson wrote: > dd would perhaps not be the end goal for any memory filesystem, but the > major point is that when you remove files, tmpfs will (try to) return the > memory to the OS, where mfs will not.
When used for things like port build directories or cvs /tmp, tmpfs performs better. On the other hand, at present mfs is more stable. > 2014-05-06 8:28 GMT+02:00 Loïc Blot <[email protected]>: > > My benchs (with dd) are showing that tmpfs is slower than mfs. (/tmp: > > tmpfs | /var/squid/cache: mfs), i've done many dd to test it, and i > > always have the same results I'm not sure I understand why you'd prefer to point squid at any type of memory filesystem rather than use its internal memory caching?
