User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Temporary files: RAM or disk?

Temporary files: RAM or disk?

Posted Jun 7, 2012 15:44 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)
In reply to: Temporary files: RAM or disk? by njs
Parent article: Temporary files: RAM or disk?

At least on our compute servers (running some vaguely recent Ubuntu, IIRC), swap-in is definitely not doing successful readahead

Good information.

That's probably a good reason to use a regular filesystem instead of tmpfs for large temporary files.

I just checked, and the only readahead tmpfs does is the normal swap readahead, which consists of reading an entire cluster of pages when one of the pages is demanded. A cluster of pages is pages that were swapped out at the same time, so they are likely to be re-referenced at the same time and are written at the same spot on the disk. But this strategy won't effect streaming, like typical filesystem readahead.

And the kernel default size of the cluster is 8 pages. You can control it with /proc/sys/vm/page-cluster, though. I would think on a system with multi-gigabyte processes, a much larger value would be optimal.


(Log in to post comments)

Temporary files: RAM or disk?

Posted Jun 11, 2012 14:51 UTC (Mon) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]

This is actually related to another problem I ran into recently: is there some way see what is actually in swap? I know /proc/<pid>/smaps gives you information about which blocks are in swap. But I can't see a way to get information about the order. That is, is my swap fragmented?


Copyright © 2018, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds