Comments on: When Memory Serves You: Using ramfs and tmpfs http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7689/ Open Source, Open Standards Sat, 05 Oct 2013 13:48:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Linux Tutorials http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7689/#comment-71573 Linux Tutorials Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:12:57 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7689/#comment-71573 I will immediately grasp your rss as I can't find your e-mail subscription link or e-newsletter service. Do you've any? Kindly allow me understand in order that I could subscribe. Thanks. I will immediately grasp your rss as I can’t find your e-mail subscription link or e-newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Kindly allow me understand in order that I could subscribe. Thanks.

]]> By: phred14 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7689/#comment-7780 phred14 Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7689/#comment-7780 <p>For the reasons mentioned in the article, ramfs sounds a bit scary and uncontrolled. Why would one ever prefer ramfs over tmpfs. I have in the past used tmpfs in this exact scenario - huge amounts of tmpfs backed by huge amounts of swap. I quit when it turned out that some software I needed to use liked to know what fs it was running on top of, and it liked afs, nfs, and ext - only. </p> For the reasons mentioned in the article, ramfs sounds a bit scary and uncontrolled. Why would one ever prefer ramfs over tmpfs. I have in the past used tmpfs in this exact scenario – huge amounts of tmpfs backed by huge amounts of swap. I quit when it turned out that some software I needed to use liked to know what fs it was running on top of, and it liked afs, nfs, and ext – only.

]]> By: johnh51 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7689/#comment-7781 johnh51 Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7689/#comment-7781 <p>This technique was useful on the IBM360 in the \'70s, but you may want to benchmark it today.<br /> I stopped doing this when The Man posted that<br /> using memory for files was not necessary since Linux buffering was so effective... The system flushes every 20 seconds, if the file lasts less than this, why would the FS write it to disk at all?... The difference between memory swapping and buffer flushing - I leave the performance benchmark to the individual machine & application mix to see if there is any improvement at all... </p> This technique was useful on the IBM360 in the \’70s, but you may want to benchmark it today.
I stopped doing this when The Man posted that
using memory for files was not necessary since Linux buffering was so effective… The system flushes every 20 seconds, if the file lasts less than this, why would the FS write it to disk at all?… The difference between memory swapping and buffer flushing – I leave the performance benchmark to the individual machine & application mix to see if there is any improvement at all…

]]> By: mrechenburg http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7689/#comment-7782 mrechenburg Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7689/#comment-7782 <p>Cool article, Many thanks Ken !</p> <p>We have just added \"in-Memory\" deployment of physical systems and virtual machines to the openQRM Datacenter Management platform (<a>http://www.openqrm-enterprise.com/</a>) using tmpfs.<br /> More details at :</p> <p><a>http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/openqrm-blog/new-feature-inmemory-deployment-runs-server-on-ramdisk-36651</a></p> <p>greetz + stay tuned,</p> <p>Matt </p> Cool article, Many thanks Ken !

We have just added \”in-Memory\” deployment of physical systems and virtual machines to the openQRM Datacenter Management platform (http://www.openqrm-enterprise.com/) using tmpfs.
More details at :

http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/openqrm-blog/new-feature-inmemory-deployment-runs-server-on-ramdisk-36651

greetz + stay tuned,

Matt

]]>