Consider the practice of mounting the /tmp directory on a tmpfs memory based filesystem, as can be done with:
systemctl enable tmp.mount
And consider the following:
one justification: The use of separate file systems for different paths can protect the system from failures resulting from a file system becoming full or failing.
another justification: Some applications writing files in the /tmp directory can see huge improvements when memory is used instead of disk.
Is disk caching always in effect? By that I mean when you write to any folder (not just
/tmp) you are probably writing to RAM anyway until such time it gets flushed to disk... the kernel handles all this under the hood and it is my opinion I don't need to go meddling tweaking things. So does doing
systemctl enable tmp.mount has any real value, if so what?
Also (in CentOS-7.6) I am testing this to try and understand what's happening I am experiencing:
- CentOS 7.6 installed on one 500GB SSD with simple disk partitioning as
- PC has 8GB of DDR-4 RAM
- if I do just
systemctl enable tmp.mountI then get
How is this
tmpfs /tmp at 3.9GB any better than the default way which would (a) first have up to ~8GB based on RAM thanks to disk caching and (b) then when disk caching at capacity based on 8GB of RAM there is > 400GB of disk available to use ?