/tmp与/dev/shm在Linux上用于临时文件存储? [英] /tmp vs. /dev/shm for temp file storage on Linux?

问题描述

我有一些脚本，它们需要创建数百个快速连续的小型临时文件，并很快将其读回，然后取消链接.

I have scripts that make hundreds of quick succession, small, temp files needing to be created and very soon read back in, then unlinked.

即使在中等负载下，通过将上述文件放在Linux上的/tmp(到磁盘)或/dev/shm(文件系统级共享内存)中，我的测试也没有表现出任何性能差异.我将此归因于文件系统缓存.

My testing shows little if any performance difference by putting said files in /tmp (to disk) or into /dev/shm (filesystem-level shared memory) on Linux even under moderate load. I attribute this to the filesystem cache.

授予磁盘最终会 被fileystem操作击中，但是在多个小的读写临时文件上，为什么您(不)在磁盘支持的目录中推荐/dev/shm呢?您是否注意到缓存的VFS上的共享内存目录显着提高了性能?

Granted the disk will eventually get hit with the fileystem actions, but on multiple small write-read temp files, why would you (not) recommend /dev/shm over disk-backed directory? Have you noticed big performance increases with shared memory directory over a cached VFS?

推荐答案

/dev/shm用于非常特殊的目的，而不是用于由任意程序放入的文件.

/dev/shm is intended for a very special purpose, not for files to be put to by arbitrary programs.

相反，/tmp是专门为此制作的.在我的系统上，/tmp也是tmpfs，而/var/tmp则是设计用于放置较大的文件，可能会保留更长的时间.

In contrast, /tmp is exactly made for this. On my systems, /tmp is a tmpfs as well, in contrast to /var/tmp which is designed for putting larger files, potentially staying longer.

这篇关于/tmp与/dev/shm在Linux上用于临时文件存储?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！