Does Linux tmpfs filesystem need the sync option?
I'm looking for info about mounting a tmpfs partition and sync option.
Sync makes the data beeing dumped onto the disk without beeing saved in cache.
This works with ext4 and other filesystems. I'm wondering is even a tmpfs partition needs the sync option to be specified or it is enabled by default since it is a RAM partition. In my option it would be odd if a ramdisk would be cached in RAM.
tmpfs /tmp tmpfs defaults,sync,noatime,nosuid,nodev,noexec,mode=0777,size=400M 0 0
In a tmpfs partition is sync enabled by default?
tmpfs
edited 2 days ago
poige
6,83411337
asked Jan 13 at 13:38
Viktor JorasViktor Joras
324
add a comment |
I'm looking for info about mounting a tmpfs partition and sync option.
Sync makes the data beeing dumped onto the disk without beeing saved in cache.
This works with ext4 and other filesystems. I'm wondering is even a tmpfs partition needs the sync option to be specified or it is enabled by default since it is a RAM partition. In my option it would be odd if a ramdisk would be cached in RAM.
tmpfs /tmp tmpfs defaults,sync,noatime,nosuid,nodev,noexec,mode=0777,size=400M 0 0
In a tmpfs partition is sync enabled by default?
tmpfs
edited 2 days ago
poige
6,83411337
asked Jan 13 at 13:38
Viktor JorasViktor Joras
324
2
tmpfsis not backed by any partition in the first place.
– kasperd
Jan 13 at 15:56
exactly, let's change subject once again ;)
– poige
2 days ago
add a comment |
I'm looking for info about mounting a tmpfs partition and sync option.
Sync makes the data beeing dumped onto the disk without beeing saved in cache.
This works with ext4 and other filesystems. I'm wondering is even a tmpfs partition needs the sync option to be specified or it is enabled by default since it is a RAM partition. In my option it would be odd if a ramdisk would be cached in RAM.
tmpfs /tmp tmpfs defaults,sync,noatime,nosuid,nodev,noexec,mode=0777,size=400M 0 0
In a tmpfs partition is sync enabled by default?
tmpfs
edited 2 days ago
poige
6,83411337
asked Jan 13 at 13:38
Viktor JorasViktor Joras
324
I'm looking for info about mounting a tmpfs partition and sync option.
Sync makes the data beeing dumped onto the disk without beeing saved in cache.
This works with ext4 and other filesystems. I'm wondering is even a tmpfs partition needs the sync option to be specified or it is enabled by default since it is a RAM partition. In my option it would be odd if a ramdisk would be cached in RAM.
tmpfs /tmp tmpfs defaults,sync,noatime,nosuid,nodev,noexec,mode=0777,size=400M 0 0
In a tmpfs partition is sync enabled by default?
tmpfs
tmpfs
edited 2 days ago
poige
6,83411337
asked Jan 13 at 13:38
Viktor JorasViktor Joras
324
edited 2 days ago
poige
6,83411337
asked Jan 13 at 13:38
Viktor JorasViktor Joras
324
edited 2 days ago
poige
6,83411337
edited 2 days ago
poige
6,83411337
edited 2 days ago
poige
6,83411337
6,83411337
asked Jan 13 at 13:38
Viktor JorasViktor Joras
324
asked Jan 13 at 13:38
Viktor JorasViktor Joras
324
asked Jan 13 at 13:38
Viktor JorasViktor Joras
324
324
2
tmpfsis not backed by any partition in the first place.
– kasperd
Jan 13 at 15:56
exactly, let's change subject once again ;)
– poige
2 days ago
add a comment |
2
tmpfsis not backed by any partition in the first place.
– kasperd
Jan 13 at 15:56
exactly, let's change subject once again ;)
– poige
2 days ago
2
2
tmpfs is not backed by any partition in the first place.– kasperd
Jan 13 at 15:56
tmpfs is not backed by any partition in the first place.– kasperd
Jan 13 at 15:56
exactly, let's change subject once again ;)
– poige
2 days ago
exactly, let's change subject once again ;)
– poige
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
I had to search a bit.
According to
man mount
The sync option is relevant only for a limited number of filesystems, not for tmpfs.
So the answer is: It does not matter, since it is ignored by tmpfs.
answered Jan 13 at 14:53
NilsNils
6,62222162
add a comment |
Sync makes the data beeing dumped onto the disk without beeing saved in cache
"Standard" Linux manual states:
sync All I/O to the filesystem should be done synchronously.
In the case of media with a limited number of write cycles
(e.g. some flash drives), sync may cause life-cycle shortening.
So it's not about cacheing but rather about durability. Writing synchronously doesn't mean there wouldn't be caching (for e. g., writethrough is well-known caching approach which is very different to writeback but both still are cacheing).
In my option it would be odd if a ramdisk would be cached in RAM.
As explained it doesn't prohibit cacheing but rather prohibits writeback-like behaviour. What would be odd is "durability" for RAM disk though.
answered Jan 13 at 15:45
poigepoige
6,83411337
3
It made a ton of sense on the 2.0 kernel ramdisk implementation, which actually did cache (I know crazy huh).
– joshudson
Jan 13 at 19:07
probably you misread it. tmpfs isn't block device which RAM-disk is. Also it's not about cache
– poige
Jan 14 at 2:57
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "2"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f948829%2fdoes-linux-tmpfs-filesystem-need-the-sync-option%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I had to search a bit.
According to
man mount
The sync option is relevant only for a limited number of filesystems, not for tmpfs.
So the answer is: It does not matter, since it is ignored by tmpfs.
answered Jan 13 at 14:53
NilsNils
6,62222162
add a comment |
I had to search a bit.
According to
man mount
The sync option is relevant only for a limited number of filesystems, not for tmpfs.
So the answer is: It does not matter, since it is ignored by tmpfs.
answered Jan 13 at 14:53
NilsNils
6,62222162
add a comment |
I had to search a bit.
According to
man mount
The sync option is relevant only for a limited number of filesystems, not for tmpfs.
So the answer is: It does not matter, since it is ignored by tmpfs.
answered Jan 13 at 14:53
NilsNils
6,62222162
I had to search a bit.
According to
man mount
The sync option is relevant only for a limited number of filesystems, not for tmpfs.
So the answer is: It does not matter, since it is ignored by tmpfs.
answered Jan 13 at 14:53
NilsNils
6,62222162
answered Jan 13 at 14:53
NilsNils
6,62222162
answered Jan 13 at 14:53
NilsNils
6,62222162
answered Jan 13 at 14:53
NilsNils
6,62222162
6,62222162
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sync makes the data beeing dumped onto the disk without beeing saved in cache
"Standard" Linux manual states:
sync All I/O to the filesystem should be done synchronously.
In the case of media with a limited number of write cycles
(e.g. some flash drives), sync may cause life-cycle shortening.
So it's not about cacheing but rather about durability. Writing synchronously doesn't mean there wouldn't be caching (for e. g., writethrough is well-known caching approach which is very different to writeback but both still are cacheing).
In my option it would be odd if a ramdisk would be cached in RAM.
As explained it doesn't prohibit cacheing but rather prohibits writeback-like behaviour. What would be odd is "durability" for RAM disk though.
answered Jan 13 at 15:45
poigepoige
6,83411337
3
It made a ton of sense on the 2.0 kernel ramdisk implementation, which actually did cache (I know crazy huh).
– joshudson
Jan 13 at 19:07
probably you misread it. tmpfs isn't block device which RAM-disk is. Also it's not about cache
– poige
Jan 14 at 2:57
add a comment |
Sync makes the data beeing dumped onto the disk without beeing saved in cache
"Standard" Linux manual states:
sync All I/O to the filesystem should be done synchronously.
In the case of media with a limited number of write cycles
(e.g. some flash drives), sync may cause life-cycle shortening.
So it's not about cacheing but rather about durability. Writing synchronously doesn't mean there wouldn't be caching (for e. g., writethrough is well-known caching approach which is very different to writeback but both still are cacheing).
In my option it would be odd if a ramdisk would be cached in RAM.
As explained it doesn't prohibit cacheing but rather prohibits writeback-like behaviour. What would be odd is "durability" for RAM disk though.
answered Jan 13 at 15:45
poigepoige
6,83411337
3
It made a ton of sense on the 2.0 kernel ramdisk implementation, which actually did cache (I know crazy huh).
– joshudson
Jan 13 at 19:07
probably you misread it. tmpfs isn't block device which RAM-disk is. Also it's not about cache
– poige
Jan 14 at 2:57
add a comment |
Sync makes the data beeing dumped onto the disk without beeing saved in cache
"Standard" Linux manual states:
sync All I/O to the filesystem should be done synchronously.
In the case of media with a limited number of write cycles
(e.g. some flash drives), sync may cause life-cycle shortening.
So it's not about cacheing but rather about durability. Writing synchronously doesn't mean there wouldn't be caching (for e. g., writethrough is well-known caching approach which is very different to writeback but both still are cacheing).
In my option it would be odd if a ramdisk would be cached in RAM.
As explained it doesn't prohibit cacheing but rather prohibits writeback-like behaviour. What would be odd is "durability" for RAM disk though.
answered Jan 13 at 15:45
poigepoige
6,83411337
Sync makes the data beeing dumped onto the disk without beeing saved in cache
"Standard" Linux manual states:
sync All I/O to the filesystem should be done synchronously.
In the case of media with a limited number of write cycles
(e.g. some flash drives), sync may cause life-cycle shortening.
So it's not about cacheing but rather about durability. Writing synchronously doesn't mean there wouldn't be caching (for e. g., writethrough is well-known caching approach which is very different to writeback but both still are cacheing).
In my option it would be odd if a ramdisk would be cached in RAM.
As explained it doesn't prohibit cacheing but rather prohibits writeback-like behaviour. What would be odd is "durability" for RAM disk though.
answered Jan 13 at 15:45
poigepoige
6,83411337
answered Jan 13 at 15:45
poigepoige
6,83411337
answered Jan 13 at 15:45
poigepoige
6,83411337
answered Jan 13 at 15:45
poigepoige
6,83411337
6,83411337
3
It made a ton of sense on the 2.0 kernel ramdisk implementation, which actually did cache (I know crazy huh).
– joshudson
Jan 13 at 19:07
probably you misread it. tmpfs isn't block device which RAM-disk is. Also it's not about cache
– poige
Jan 14 at 2:57
add a comment |
3
It made a ton of sense on the 2.0 kernel ramdisk implementation, which actually did cache (I know crazy huh).
– joshudson
Jan 13 at 19:07
probably you misread it. tmpfs isn't block device which RAM-disk is. Also it's not about cache
– poige
Jan 14 at 2:57
3
3
It made a ton of sense on the 2.0 kernel ramdisk implementation, which actually did cache (I know crazy huh).
– joshudson
Jan 13 at 19:07
It made a ton of sense on the 2.0 kernel ramdisk implementation, which actually did cache (I know crazy huh).
– joshudson
Jan 13 at 19:07
probably you misread it. tmpfs isn't block device which RAM-disk is. Also it's not about cache
– poige
Jan 14 at 2:57
probably you misread it. tmpfs isn't block device which RAM-disk is. Also it's not about cache
– poige
Jan 14 at 2:57
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Server Fault!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f948829%2fdoes-linux-tmpfs-filesystem-need-the-sync-option%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
tmpfsis not backed by any partition in the first place.– kasperd
Jan 13 at 15:56
exactly, let's change subject once again ;)
– poige
2 days ago