| 1 |
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:20:56PM +0300, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 23:58 Tue 17 May , Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 3 |
> > ... |
| 4 |
> > I'd add that if we want /run to be on tmpfs, /var/run and /tmp should |
| 5 |
> > both be on tmpfs by default. I've been doing this manually for a year, |
| 6 |
> > and so have other distributions. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Hi, |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> A quick look at the size of my desktop's /tmp is: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> spirit@Vereniki ~ $ du -sh /tmp/ |
| 14 |
> 641M /tmp/ |
| 15 |
> spirit@Vereniki ~ $ |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Maybe it's just me (cause of the way I'm using /tmp, eg. I use that dir |
| 18 |
> to unpack sources of packages I want to temporarily look inside and |
| 19 |
> for anything else *temporary*, also some programs (eg. browsers) use it |
| 20 |
> for temporary storage) but if there are others like me, I don't |
| 21 |
> think we'd like to do this in RAM space (tmpfs). For /run and /var/run |
| 22 |
> dirs it's ok I suppose. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If you want /tmp to be a tmpfs, that is pretty easy to do through fstab |
| 25 |
(I do that here actually). I'm not sure whether we want to force that on |
| 26 |
a distribution level or not though. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
The directories that would be affected by having /run on tmpfs would be |
| 29 |
/var/run and /var/lock. The suggested way of doing this is to have |
| 30 |
/var/run linked to /run and /var/lock linked to /run/lock. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
William |
Archives