On 23/05/15 10:45, Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2015 16:55:20 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article
wwv1ti8r5fm.fsf@l1AntVDjLrnP7Td3DQJ8ynzIq3lJMueXf 87AxnpFoA.invalid,
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
These paths don't identify a particular kind of fileystem; they identify
what kind of files should be put there. In particular, /tmp (or
$TMPDIR) is a location for temporary file.

If the operator wants, or does not want, to use a tmpfs for temporary
files, that's up to them. There's no such thing as a path which is
guaranteed to be a tmpfs; what filesystems are used where is down to
local policy.

That sums up why I decided I couldn't use this method for programs I
release for others to use. Its a shame, though, because it potentially
means the programs are slower and may 'wear' the SSD/HD.

It seems a shame, though, given that RO makes this easy.

Jim

Can you wear an SSD this way? As I understand it they have an internal
OS that is constantly shifting the data around anyway, and putting in
some more from outside really doesn't make a great deal of difference.

d


I would not worry about SSD wear - I have been using them in laptops for
a while - my current one is over a year old and shows 100% on the
Wear_Leveling_Count (that's good, 0% is "dead").