/tmp vs. /dev/shm for temp file storage on Linux?

linux shared-memory temporary-files
Jé Queue picture Jé Queue · Mar 16, 2012 · Viewed 19.5k times · Source

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

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.

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?

Answer

glglgl picture glglgl · Mar 17, 2012

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

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.

Related questions

How to use shared memory with Linux in C

I have a bit of an issue with one of my projects. I have been trying to find a well documented example of using shared memory with fork() but to no success. Basically the scenario is that when the user …

Read More
Delete all SYSTEM V shared memory and semaphores on UNIX-like systems

How can I delete all not used semaphores and shared memory with a single command on a UNIX-like system, e.g., Ubuntu?

Read More
Linux shared memory: shmget() vs mmap()?

In this thread the OP is suggested to use mmap() instead of shmget() to get shared memory in Linux. I visited this page and this page to get some documentation, but the second one gives an obscure example regarding mmap(). …

Read More