←back to thread

62 points hiAndrewQuinn | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hackyhacky ◴[] No.44392515[source]
Rather than re-write your scripts to store temp files into /dev/shm, you can just mount /tmp using the tmpfs file system and get the same benefit for all your programs. Some distros do this by default.

The relevant line from fstab is:

    tmpfs /tmp            tmpfs    noatime 0       2
Now any program that writes to /tmp will be writing to a RAM disk, thus sparing unnecessary wear on my SSD.
replies(7): >>44392526 #>>44392690 #>>44392745 #>>44392789 #>>44392847 #>>44393129 #>>44393836 #
hiAndrewQuinn ◴[] No.44392526[source]
I do mention this offhand in the article: "The existence of /dev/shm is a boon for me mostly because it means I never have to worry about whether /tmp is really RAM-based again."
replies(2): >>44392561 #>>44392655 #
quotemstr ◴[] No.44392561[source]
Now you have to worry about whether you can access /dev/shm. Please encourage people to use supported interfaces instead of random voodoo (anything under /dev that wasn't there in 1995) for day-to-day tasks.
replies(2): >>44392587 #>>44392713 #
1. wredcoll ◴[] No.44392713[source]
This is a ridiculous comment but it did make me curious, when did /dev/shm become a common thing?

My current understanding is kernel 2.6, i.e. 2004.

replies(1): >>44392749 #
2. esseph ◴[] No.44392749[source]
2.4 in 2001 is when it was released with kernel support