Over using tmpfs?

lwpro · 2009-03-20 08:23:24

I tried to use tmpfs to be mounted at /tmp, and under that folder I can have a much more speed of compiling, and I don't know If I can have more folders to use tmpfs. I have thought of /var/tmp but I check the pathname website and it says that /var/tmp is intended for files to be remained between reboots.
So Can I make more use of tmpfs or maybe it's just a waste of time? Some suggestions?

glad · 2009-03-20 09:01:05

For starters, why did you create five posts about the same topic?

But you can have the Firefox profile in tmpfs, it makes firefox a lot faster

But you have to unpack it to tmpfs at every boot, but for that you can use a script

Stythys · 2009-03-20 09:35:24

please don't spam the forum...it just makes people less willing to help you.

byte · 2009-03-20 09:48:17

I've made /tmp a symlink to /dev/shm, that's even simpler than creating a mount point.
But sorry, no idea about other directories or apps.

AndyRTR · 2009-03-20 10:06:03

I'm unsing tmpfs for /tmp and use it everytime for compiling packages. It gives me about 30% speedup compared to regular disc usage(eg OOo 85min->60min).

lwpro · 2009-03-20 12:32:13

I am so sorry, Because of a network lag and that makes me click may times on the "Submit"...

haxit · 2009-03-20 15:51:42

byte wrote:

I've made /tmp a symlink to /dev/shm, that's even simpler than creating a mount point.
But sorry, no idea about other directories or apps.

So would this be just:

ln -s /dev/shm /tmp

pyther · 2009-03-20 16:25:33

lwpro wrote:

I am so sorry, Because of a network lag and that makes me click may times on the "Submit"...

Next time just hit submit once and then if it lags copy your post and see if it went through. Just a tip.

briest · 2009-03-21 12:01:01

Recently i've found an interesting article about joining ramdisk (for speed) and physical storage (for plenty of space). The case was MySQL server, which benefits from temp dir on ramdisk, but sometimes may need up to serveral gigabytes available.

muunleit · 2009-03-23 09:56:27

lwpro wrote:

So Can I make more use of tmpfs or maybe it's just a waste of time? Some suggestions?

Maybe this wiki-page will help you. => http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ramdisk

fukawi2 · 2009-03-23 22:37:54

Slightly OT: What's the difference between ramfs and tmpfs in a nutshell?

my0pic · 2009-03-23 23:04:29

fukawi2 wrote:

Slightly OT: What's the difference between ramfs and tmpfs in a nutshell?

From the Ramdisk wiki...

If you don't have a lot of spare ram, it is recommended to use 'tmpfs' instead of 'ramfs', as tmpfs uses Swap when the available RAM starts to run out, whereas ramfs doesn't. of course, dipping into swap loses the performance benefits of RAM, so it's a little pointless unless you have a lot of spare RAM.

Ranguvar · 2009-03-24 00:17:41

ramfs is almost completely replaced (from a user standpoint) by tmpfs, since tmpfs allows you to set size used limits, and can use swap if it's there.

fukawi2 · 2009-03-24 04:05:49

Sweet, thanks guys

*passes topic back to OP* (sorry!)

Ranguvar · 2009-03-24 14:52:18

OP, you are correct that /var/tmp should not lose data between reboots. Having /tmp as a tmpfs is a good practice for compiling, especially since it drastically reduces hard drive wear (or SSD wear!), but leave /var/tmp as a 'real' partition / directory. I doubt anything very speed-dependent like compiler stuff will be stored there anyways.

byte · 2009-03-25 11:21:58

Ranguvar wrote:

I doubt anything very speed-dependent like compiler stuff will be stored there [/var/tmp] anyways.

So far I've only seen it used by KDE for its cache data.

steve-e · 2009-03-26 23:55:48

Ranguvar wrote:

OP, you are correct that /var/tmp should not lose data between reboots. Having /tmp as a tmpfs is a good practice for compiling, especially since it drastically reduces hard drive wear (or SSD wear!), but leave /var/tmp as a 'real' partition / directory. I doubt anything very speed-dependent like compiler stuff will be stored there anyways.

I am running arch and /var/tmp mounted as tmpfs for several years now. No notable problem so far.

broch · 2009-03-27 02:45:39

ramfs is almost completely replaced (from a user standpoint) by tmpfs, since tmpfs allows you to set size used limits, and can use swap if it's there.

only partially true:

ramfs can have set size too:
ramdisk_size=xxx (append to grub)
next configure ramdisk in rc.local
use ramdisk for anything you want (size limitation of course). It is safe if you follow Arch wiki regarding hdd writing before shutdown.

AndyRTR · 2009-03-27 05:34:11

Writing down the whole /tmp content at shutdown doesn't make much sense to me. The intend of the /tmp directy is to store _runtime_ datas you can delete at reboot. So every distribution does in the init sripts. Also writing down all of my several gb /tmp(fs) to disc would take a lot of time.

I only 'cp' what I need to ~/tmp.

Hint: tmpfs seems to have issues at shutdown sometimes. When I have used it so extensively that it extends to use swap it has problems to get umounted at shutdown. So it's better to rm -rf /tmp/* before typing reboot

Dieter@be · 2009-03-27 09:28:41

Ranguvar wrote:

Having /tmp as a tmpfs is a good practice for compiling, especially since it drastically reduces hard drive wear (or SSD wear!), but leave /var/tmp as a 'real' partition / directory.

You can always make /var/tmp (and similars) ext4, or any other separate filesystem and increase the commit/flush intervals.

Imho "using tmpfs but with a script to populate/save data to/from it at certain points" is pretty much the same as using a normal filesystem that gets synced infrequently.

broch · 2009-03-27 14:27:12

well temp means temporary so holding to it makes not much sense.

interesting that nobody is trying to tweak disk I/O latencies and vm (I don't mean useless vm.swappiness=0)

jck · 2009-05-19 16:51:20

when i compile programs it automatically uses /tmp ?

SpeedVin · 2009-05-27 17:22:15

Hmm i will try it that ,but i got question wiki says:
none /path/to/location ramfs 0 0
What i should write in /patch/to/location?
Meaby /dev/ram0 or something?

fukawi2 · 2009-05-27 23:03:28

SpeedVin wrote:

none /path/to/location ramfs 0 0
What i should write in /patch/to/location?
Meaby /dev/ram0 or something?

Uhhh, /tmp perhaps?

DevoidOfWindows · 2009-05-28 00:19:59

haxit wrote:

byte wrote:
I've made /tmp a symlink to /dev/shm, that's even simpler than creating a mount point.
But sorry, no idea about other directories or apps.
So would this be just:
ln -s /dev/shm /tmp

Better idea:

mkdir /dev/shm/tmp /dev/shm/lock
chmod 1777 /dev/shm/tmp /dev/shm/lock
mount --bind /dev/shm/tmp /tmp
mount --bind /dev/shm/tmp /var/tmp
mount --bind /dev/shm/lock /var/lock

Arch Linux

#1 2009-03-20 08:23:24

Over using tmpfs?

#2 2009-03-20 09:01:05

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#3 2009-03-20 09:35:24

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#4 2009-03-20 09:48:17

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#5 2009-03-20 10:06:03

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#6 2009-03-20 12:32:13

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#7 2009-03-20 15:51:42

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#8 2009-03-20 16:25:33

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#9 2009-03-21 12:01:01

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#10 2009-03-23 09:56:27

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#11 2009-03-23 22:37:54

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#12 2009-03-23 23:04:29

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#13 2009-03-24 00:17:41

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#14 2009-03-24 04:05:49

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#15 2009-03-24 14:52:18

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#16 2009-03-25 11:21:58

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#17 2009-03-26 23:55:48

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#18 2009-03-27 02:45:39

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#19 2009-03-27 05:34:11

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#20 2009-03-27 09:28:41

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#21 2009-03-27 14:27:12

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#22 2009-05-19 16:51:20

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#23 2009-05-27 17:22:15

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#24 2009-05-27 23:03:28

Re: Over using tmpfs?

#25 2009-05-28 00:19:59

Re: Over using tmpfs?

Board footer