LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for LINUX-L Archives


LINUX-L Archives

LINUX-L Archives


LINUX-L@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LINUX-L Home

LINUX-L Home

LINUX-L  2007

LINUX-L 2007

Subject:

Re: /dev/shm

From:

Doug Goldstein <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Platform Independent Linux List! <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 9 Mar 2007 20:27:13 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (80 lines)

Arthur Sherman wrote:
>> Applications that are /dev/shm-aware usually take care of it
>> automagically,
>> there's nothing to configure. However, you can get better
>> performance out
>> of some applications by also mounting /tmp as a tmpfs filesystem.
>>
>
> However, MailScanner, which appears to be shm-aware, wasn't so as a default.
> I had to mount it to shm:
>
> [root@ns1 ~]# df -h
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/md1 6.0G 1.1G 4.6G 20% /
> /dev/md6 99M 12M 83M 12% /boot
> none 1.5G 0 1.5G 0% /dev/shm
> /dev/md4 135G 2.5G 126G 2% /home
> /dev/md2 1012M 40M 921M 5% /tmp
> /dev/md3 4.0G 302M 3.5G 8% /var
> none 1.5G 32K 1.5G 1% /var/spool/MailScanner/incoming
> [root@ns1 ~]# cat /etc/fstab
> # This file is edited by fstab-sync - see 'man fstab-sync' for details
> /dev/md1 / ext3 defaults 1 1
> /dev/md6 /boot ext3 defaults 1 2
> none /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0
> none /dev/shm tmpfs noexec,nosuid,rw
> 0 0
> /dev/md4 /home ext3
> defaults,usrquota,grpquota 1 2
> none /proc proc defaults 0 0
> none /sys sysfs defaults 0 0
> /dev/md2 /tmp ext3 defaults 1 2
> /dev/md3 /var ext3 defaults 1 2
> /dev/md5 swap swap defaults 0 0
> # this is from MailScanner.info MAQ:
> http://www.mailscanner.info/serve/cache/120.html
> none /var/spool/MailScanner/incoming tmpfs defaults 0 0
> /dev/hdb /media/cdrom auto
> pamconsole,exec,noauto,managed 0 0
>
> BTW, it appears I was hasty to say I have /tmp mounted as tmpfs.
> Now, I recall someone told me off, arguing it will break things, such as yum
> etc.
>
If yum is broken by /tmp being a tmpfs then it is truly a worse
application then I ever imaged it is...

In reality, no application should break since a tmpfs is just a fake
filesystem which never writes anything to disk.

Common configurations are similiar to:

none /dev/shm tmpfs
nodev,nosuid,noexec 0 0
none /tmp tmpfs
noatime,size=128M 0 0

Sometimes you will see /tmp implemented as:

none /tmp tmpfs
noatime,nosuid,nodev,size=128M 0 0

But it's all a security thing at that point.



> How serious is it?
> I'd really like to make as much apps work from tmpfs as possible, for
> obvious performance advantage
>
>
> Best,
>
> --
> Arthur Sherman
>
> +972-52-4878851
> http://www.cpt.co.il/
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager