| 1 |
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 10:50, Roy Marples wrote: |
| 2 |
> > I'm using that now and hope to keep it. I went with the suggested |
| 3 |
> > size=2m (tmpfs). df says 184KB used, so that's quite big enough and then |
| 4 |
> > some, but on Linux the free space isn't actually allocated until it's no |
| 5 |
> > longer free space, so no matter. Are you saying the BSDs would allocate |
| 6 |
> > and therefore remove from further use the full 2MB, no way around it, |
| 7 |
> > even if only 148KB is actually used? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Which demonstrates that you don't know about tmpfs as you don't specify any |
| 10 |
> size for it - it just uses what it needs. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> And yes, the BSD's will use the full 2MB. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Actually I forgot about the option allowing you todo this. It will be |
| 15 |
> supported in the next version, although the variable name specified |
| 16 |
> in /etc/conf.d/rc will change to match out existing RC_ names, the old one |
| 17 |
> will still work. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Actually, before I do that, let me attack this from another angle. |
| 20 |
What do you gain from keeping it mounted as a ramdisk? |
| 21 |
If the answer is performance, well you loose performance at start time as |
| 22 |
you've lost the deptree. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
So why would you want to keep it? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Roy Marples <uberlord@g.o> |
| 28 |
Gentoo/Linux/FreeBSD Developer (baselayout, networking) |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives