I just realized that /tmp/ directory is not mounted on RAM, doesn’t this cause undue wear and tear of the drive?
On RAM should be OK, as long as /tmp/ is used correctly and nothing expects it to survive a reboot. Current RAM uses charges metallically conducted into capacitors, rather than tunnelled through insulating layers and I’ve never seen a cycle count limit on RAM.
Everything that gets written to disk is written to RAM first.
Not using ephemeral /tmp is one common method that penetrations of whatever origin can persist over reboots.
Personally I prefer my tmp structures to actually be temporary.
I’ve updated the topic to clarify that I found that /tmp/ directory is mounted on the root partition in lieu of ram.
[[email protected] ~]# df
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
devtmpfs 2442160 0 2442160 0% /dev
tmpfs 2488880 0 2488880 0% /dev/shm
tmpfs 2488880 254916 2233964 11% /run
tmpfs 2488880 0 2488880 0% /sys/fs/cgroup
/dev/mapper/SangomaVG-root 19552256 9845688 9706568 51% /
/dev/sda1 1983056 62604 1801668 4% /boot
tmpfs 497776 0 497776 0% /run/user/0
[[email protected] ~]# df -h /tmp/
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/SangomaVG-root 19G 9.4G 9.3G 51% /
I’m asking why is this so as I would also prefer tmp directory to be on ram instead of wearing out the SSD.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 31 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.