Re: [gentoo-user] How can I control size of /run (tmpfs)?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 23:02:13 +0200
Michael Hampicke <gentoo-user@××××.biz> wrote:

>
>
> Am 26.05.2012 22:28, schrieb Dale:
> > Jarry wrote:
> >> On 26-May-12 22:01, Dale wrote:
> >>> Jarry wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> after updating baselayout from 2.0.3 to 2.1-r1 /run is mounted
> >>>> as tmpfs. But I can not find any mount-option for controlling
> >>>> how much memory is (or could be) used for it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Filesystem     1K-blocks    Used Available Use% Mounted on
> >>>> tmpfs            8223848     224   8223624   1% /run
> >>>>
> >>>> I know it does not use 8GB right now, yet I'd like to reduce
> >>>> it to some lower value, not half of my physical memory.
> >>>> How can I do it? Can I simply add line in fstab like:
> >>>>
> >>>> none /run tmpfs size=128m 0 0         ???
> >>>>
> >>>> Jarry
> >>>
> >>> Holy smoke !  Mine is doing the same thing.
> >>> tmpfs                   7.9G  260K  7.9G   1% /run
> >>>
> >>> But I also have this:
> >>> tmpfs                   7.9G     0  7.9G   0% /var/tmp/portage
> >>>
> >>> So, between those two, I could run out of ram since I have 16Gbs.
> >>>
> >>> There is now TWO people that needs a answer to this question.
> >>> Why does it need that much anyway?  It looks to me like a few
> >>> hundred Mbs, like Jarry posted, would be plenty.  Jeepers
> >>> creepers.  lol
> >>>
> >>> Dale
> >>
> >> I suppose default size for tmpfs is half of physical memory,
> >> if it is not configured somewhere else.
> >>
> >> BTW, is there any way to turn this great feature off?
> >> What is it good for? I do not see any advantage in having
> >> /run on tmpfs...
> >>
> >> Jarry
> >
> >
> > I had no idea it was doing this either until your post.  I got the
> > same questions as you do.  Why is it there?  Why so much is
> > allocated to it? Where can we change the settings for this
> > questionable "feature"?
> >
> > I'm hoping someone will come along and answer both our questions.
> > I'm really hoping for a place we can change the settings.  I don't
> > mind it being there so much if it is useful.   I would like to know
> > its purpose tho.
>
> As Michael Mol already said, tmpfs for the run dir is not a bad thing,
> it, it does not eat all your ram :)
> I however have a different question: Why do we need a new /run when we
> already have /var/run. There's no mention of /run in the FHS either.
> I only see udev stuff under /run - So it's another crazy udev
> thing? :)
>

/var can fail to mount, then you have no /var/run.

FHS isn't much as standards go. It's a bunch of good ideas (some less
so than others but it has always been just good (unenforceable) ideas.

As to why only udev stuff is in /run, that's because udev is the only
thing you have that's using it (currently). That might change, but it's
up to individual package authors.



-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com