I have a rather old server that has 4GB of RAM and it is pretty much serving the same files all day, but it is doing so from the hard drive while 3GBs of RAM are "free".

Anyone who has ever tried running a ram-drive can witness that It's awesome in terms of speed. The memory usage of this system is usually never higher than 1GB/4GB so I want to know if there is a way to use that extra memory for something good.

  • Is it possible to tell the filesystem to always serve certain files out of RAM?
  • Are there any other methods I can use to improve file reading capabilities by use of RAM?

More specifically, I am not looking for a 'hack' here. I want file system calls to serve the files from RAM without needing to create a ram-drive and copy the files there manually. Or at least a script that does this for me.

Possible applications here are:

  • Web servers with static files that get read alot
  • Application servers with large libraries
  • Desktop computers with too much RAM

Any ideas?


  • Found this very informative: The Linux Page Cache and pdflush
  • As Zan pointed out, the memory isn't actually free. What I mean is that it's not being used by applications and I want to control what should be cached in memory.
  • 1
    I too am seeking something along these lines. I don't think that general filesystem disk block caching is the answer. Suppose that I want disk block X to always be cached. Something accesses it, and the kernel caches it. So far so good, but the next process wants block Y, so the kernel discards my block X and caches Y instead. The next process that wants X will have to wait for it to come off the disk; that's what I want to avoid. What I would like (and what I think the original poster is after too) is to overlay a write-through cache onto a filesystem that will guarantee the files are always
    – Sacha
    Feb 7, 2010 at 1:03
  • 2
    Given that the consensus seems to be that Linux should already be caching frequently-used files for you, I'm wondering if you actually managed to make any improvements using the advice found here. It seems to me that trying to manually control caching might be useful to warm up the cache, but that with the usage pattern you describe ("serving the same files all day"), it wouldn't help an already-warmed-up server much, if at all.
    – Nate C-K
    Nov 20, 2014 at 15:27
  • You say you're not looking for a hack, but Linux already does what you want to do by default. The following equation: "serving the same files all day" + "tell the filesystem to always serve certain files out of RAM" equals "Hack" by definition. Did you actually notice any performance improvements? By my experience, Linux cache's the bejeezus out of your filesystem reads.
    – Mike S
    Oct 31, 2016 at 15:04
  • 3
    For clarification, linux does cache files, but the metadata is validated for each file for each request. On spinning rust, on a busy web server with a lot of small files, that can still cause IO contention and prematurely wear out drives. Static content and scripts can be rsync into /dev/shm or a custom tmpfs mount on app startup. I've done this for a couple decades and my drives don't wear out prematurely. Also my sites withstand heavy burst load much better this way. This helps on anything from the most expensive enterprise hardware to commmodity hardware.
    – Aaron
    Mar 16, 2017 at 12:38

18 Answers 18


vmtouch seems like a good tool for the job.


  • query how much of a directory is cached
  • query how much of a file is cached (also which pages, graphical representation)
  • load file into cache
  • remove file from cache
  • lock files in cache
  • run as daemon

vmtouch manual

EDIT: Usage as asked in the question is listed in example 5 on vmtouch Hompage

Example 5

Daemonise and lock all files in a directory into physical memory:

vmtouch -dl /var/www/htdocs/critical/

EDIT2: As noted in the comments, there is now a git repository available.

  • 6
    For future viewers, try to use the vmtouch git repository instead of following the instructions on the linked page. That way you get a makefile and can pull updates.
    – randomous
    Aug 4, 2015 at 5:19
  • Seems that there's a limit to the size of the file (4GB). Is there any other alternative?
    – Alix Axel
    Oct 16, 2015 at 16:12
  • Ok, here's my actual use case: a RPi1 with an old SD card, out there somewhere doing Stuff. Before I get to make a trip there and replace the card (and possibly power supply), I want the OS to touch the card sparingly, preferably never. FS cache is good but beyond my control; /bin and /sbin are already on tmpfs, getting /home/user likewise has other drawbacks. vmtouch fits this niche well. Jan 10, 2019 at 16:28
  • 1
    how does vmtouch work differently than tmpfs?
    – Alex Jones
    Jan 25, 2019 at 10:26
  • @EdwardTorvalds It's simply how the files are accessed. With tmpfs, you have a separate mount point (in fact, tmpfs is just the page cache without any underlying backing device). With vmtouch, you're using the regular page cache so you don't have to deal with synchronizing the files in tmpfs with the persistent filesystem, nor do you have to deal with needing to access the files via a different path.
    – forest
    Nov 24, 2022 at 2:33

This is also possible using the vmtouch Virtual Memory Toucher utility.

The tool allows you to control the filesystem cache on a Linux system. You can force or lock a specific file or directory in the VM cache subsystem, or use it to check to see what portions of a file/directory are contained within VM.

How much of the /bin/ directory is currently in cache?

$ vmtouch /bin/
           Files: 92
     Directories: 1
  Resident Pages: 348/1307  1M/5M  26.6%
         Elapsed: 0.003426 seconds


Let's bring the rest of big-dataset.txt into memory...

$ vmtouch -vt big-dataset.txt
[OOo                                                 oOOOOOOO] 6887/42116
[OOOOOOOOo                                           oOOOOOOO] 10631/42116
[OOOOOOOOOOOOOOo                                     oOOOOOOO] 15351/42116
[OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo                              oOOOOOOO] 19719/42116
[OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo                        oOOOOOOO] 24183/42116

           Files: 1
     Directories: 0
   Touched Pages: 42116 (164M)
         Elapsed: 12.107 seconds
  • 4
    this is a great utility and does exactly what OP requested. If only he would accept this as an answer.
    – laebshade
    Jan 30, 2013 at 18:23
  • Do you know if this works with ZFS? Aug 16, 2015 at 5:36
  • 1
    @CMCDragonkai I don't think it's necessary with ZFS... Think: ARC and L2ARC.
    – ewwhite
    Aug 16, 2015 at 5:38

A poor man's trick for getting stuff into the filesystem cache is to simply cat it and redirect that to /dev/null.

This is an example:-

cat /path/myfile.db > /dev/null 
  • 1
    Agree. And if you want to ensure certain files are cached, make a cron job which cats the file to /dev/null periodically
    – Josh
    Jul 21, 2009 at 12:31
  • Cronjob is a certain inconvenience, but could you comment if there is any disadvantage of using cat file (vs. e.g. vmtouch -vt file) to load a file into the disc buffer? Sep 9, 2020 at 1:20
  • 1
    @user1079505 The disadvantage is, that if parts of the file are missing in the RAM, they will be read from the disk again. If you use vmtouch -t they are locked in the RAM and there is no need to read them again. Maybe you ask yourself why they got lost. That happens because other files are read from the disc and cached as well. If the cached files are read often, they will stay in the RAM but if you read a huge file that is bigger as your RAM, it will overwrite the complete cache (not if you locked files by vmtouch). More infos: unix.stackexchange.com/a/539180/101920
    – mgutt
    Oct 10, 2020 at 8:14
  • 1
    @cagenut An "answer to this answer": unix.stackexchange.com/a/156220/101920
    – mgutt
    Oct 10, 2020 at 8:24

Linux will cache as much disk IO in memory as it can. This is what the cache and buffer memory stats are. It'll probably do a better job than you will at storing the right things.

However, if you insist in storing your data in memory, you can create a ram drive using either tmpfs or ramfs. The difference is that ramfs will allocate all the memory you ask for, were as tmpfs will only use the memory that your block device is using. My memory is a little rusty, but you should be able to do:

 # mount -t ramfs ram /mnt/ram 


 # mount -t tmpfs tmp /mnt/tmp

and then copy your data to the directory. Obviously, when you turn the machine off or unmount that partition, your data will be lost.

  • 1
    Thanks for your answer, but this is obviously what I want to avoid. Otherwise I'd just script it so the computer would create the ramdrive, copy the files and symbolically link to the ramdrive. But then my data is inconsistent. I was hoping for a filesystem where I can 'tag' certain files to be cached in memory. But maybe I'm a bit too optimistic.
    – Andrioid
    Jul 21, 2009 at 7:21
  • 3
    You "tag" files to be cached by accessing them.
    – womble
    Jul 21, 2009 at 7:35
  • 13
    If only there was some way to automatically tag the most commonly used files. Jul 21, 2009 at 7:53
  • 5
    Blimey, sarcasm doesn't travel well does it :) Jul 21, 2009 at 13:37
  • 4
    Yes, thank you. I understand the concept of IO caching. I even explained it in my answer. Seems you didn't read the subtle comment that it was sarcasm. Jul 21, 2009 at 18:55

After some extensive reading on the 2.6 kernel swapping and page-caching features I found 'fcoretools'. Which consists of two tools;

  • fincore: Will reveal how many pages the application has stored in core memory
  • fadvise: Allows you to manipulate the core memory (page-cache).

(In case someone else finds this interesting I'm posting this here)

  • 1
    I figured there was a program to do that somewhere. +1 Jul 22, 2009 at 3:29

There are two kernel settings that can help considerably even without using other tools:


tells linux kernel how aggressively it should use swap. Quoting the Wikipedia article:

Swappiness is a property for the Linux kernel that changes the balance between swapping out runtime memory, as opposed to dropping pages from the system page cache. Swappiness can be set to values between 0 and 100 inclusive. A low value means the kernel will try to avoid swapping as much as possible where a higher value instead will make the kernel aggressively try to use swap space. The default value is 60, and for most desktop systems, setting it to 100 may affect the overall performance, whereas setting it lower (even 0) may improve interactivity (decreasing response latency.)


Quoting from vm.txt:

Controls the tendency of the kernel to reclaim the memory which is used for caching of directory and inode objects.

At the default value of vfs_cache_pressure=100 the kernel will attempt to reclaim dentries and inodes at a "fair" rate with respect to pagecache and swapcache reclaim. Decreasing vfs_cache_pressure causes the kernel to prefer to retain dentry and inode caches. ...

By setting swappiness high (like 100), the kernel moves everything it doesn't need to swap, freeing RAM for caching files. And by setting vfs_cache_pressure lower (let's say to 50, not to 0!), it will favor caching files instead of keeping application data in RAM.

(I work on a large Java project and every time I run it, it took a lot of RAM and flushed the disk cache, so the next time I compiled the project everything was read from disk again. By adjusting these two settings, I manage to keep the sources and compiled output cached in RAM, which speeds the process considerably.)


You may be able to have a program that just mmaps your files then stays running.

  • 5
    That is pretty much what 'fadvise' (fcoretools) does, as far as I can tell.
    – Andrioid
    Jul 21, 2009 at 18:09

If you have plenty of memory you can simply read in the files you want to cache with cat or similar. Linux will then do a good job of keeping it around.


I very much doubt that it is actually serving files from the disk with 3 GB RAM free. Linux file caching is very good.

If you are seeing disk IO, I would look into your logging configurations. Many logs get set as unbuffered, in order to guarantee that the latest log information is available in the event of a crash. In systems that have to be fast regardless, use buffered log IO or use a remote log server.

  • Right you are, I just want to control what is being cached.
    – Andrioid
    Jul 21, 2009 at 7:12

There are various ramfs systems you can use (eg, ramfs, tmpfs), but in general if files are actually being read that often, they sit in your filesystem cache. If your working set of files is larger than your free ram, then files will be cleared out of it - but if your working set is larger than your free ram, there's no way you'll fit it all into a ramdisk either.

Check the output of the "free" command in a shell - the value in the last column, under "Cached", is how much of your free ram is being used for filesystem cache.


As for your latter question, ensure that your RAM is sitting on different memory channels so that the processor can fetch the data in parallel.


I think this might be better solved at the application level. For instance, there are probably specialized web servers for this, or you might consider mod_cache with Apache. If you have a specific goal, such as serving web content faster, then you can get improvements form this sort of thing I think.

But your question is general in nature, the Linux memory subsystem is designed to provide the best general use of RAM. If you want to target certain types of performance, consider looking up everything in /proc/sys/vm .

The fcoretools package is interesting, I'd be interested in any articles about its application... This link talks about the actual system calls used in an application.

  • 1
    find /var/lib/mysql | xargs fadvise -willneed (dirty, but it should provide faster access to the database files; as an example)
    – Andrioid
    Jul 21, 2009 at 18:03
  • Very good hack, but such hack doesn't disable a lot of waiting fsyncs from mysql :( fsyncs are needed to ensure ACID (Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability).
    – osgx
    Feb 7, 2010 at 1:48

Desktop computers (eg. ubuntu) already uses preloading files (at least, popular shared libraries) to memory on boot. It is used to speed up booting and startup time of different bloarware like FF, OO, KDE and GNOME (with evolution bloat-mailer).

The tool is named readahead http://packages.ubuntu.com/dapper/admin/readahead

There is also corresponding syscall: readahead(2) http://linux.die.net/man/2/readahead

There is also project of preloading daemon: http://linux.die.net/man/8/preload


http://www.coker.com.au/memlockd/ does this

though you really don't need it, linux will do a pretty good job of caching the files you are using on its own.


Not exactly what was asked, but I use

find BASE_DIRECTORY -type f -exec cat {} >/dev/null \;

to trigger initialization of files in an AWS volume created from a snapshot. It's more focused than the official recommendation of using dd if you just want to read some files.


i just tried dd if=/dev/yourrootpartition of=/dev/null \ bs=1Mcount=howmuchmemoryyouwanttofill

it does not give me the control that you desire but it at least tries to use wasted memory


i use find / -name stringofrandomcharacter it helps alot

  • Note that this doesn't pre-cache the file contents, only the filesystem metadata. A useful trick if you have a lot of files you're planning to poke at, but not really relevant to the original question. Also, just find / > /dev/null 2>&1 will do the same job with slightly less CPU usage.
    – Perkins
    Aug 26, 2021 at 19:16

Sometimes I may want to cache files in a certain folder and its subfolders. I just go to this folder and execute the following:

find . -exec cp {} /dev/null \;

And those files are cached

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .