| 1 |
On Sun, 27 May 2012 09:05:46 +0200, Jarry wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I have read through all replies, but I still did not find |
| 4 |
> answers to my original questions: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Q1: Can I somehow reduce the size of /run? I know it is tmpfs |
| 7 |
> and I know this is upper limit normally never achieved, but |
| 8 |
> I want to reduce this upper limit. Is it possible, or is it |
| 9 |
> hard-coded to half of physical memory? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
That has been answered, either use fstab, which may or not work, or mount |
| 12 |
-o remount, which should. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Q2: Can I turn this "/run in tmpfs" feature off? I do not |
| 15 |
> see *any* advantage in vasting memory for /run |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Given that /var/run would be cached, at least initially, there is no more |
| 18 |
memory usage. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> If badly written application starts writing some crap in |
| 21 |
> /run, it could deadlock my computer quite easily. And before |
| 22 |
> you ask, no it is not so easy to do with /run on hard-drive |
| 23 |
> because I have plenty of TB there and monitoring software |
| 24 |
> running which alerts me as soon as any partition is half |
| 25 |
> full. Unfortunatelly this does not work for tmpfs because |
| 26 |
> with given read/write speed of ram-disk it would be full |
| 27 |
> in a few seconds before I had any chance to act... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Except that the default size is HALF your RAM, so something else would |
| 30 |
need to be using the other half and all your swap (tmpfs will use swap if |
| 31 |
physical memory is not available). |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Octal: (n.) a base-8 counting system designed so that one hand may count |
| 38 |
upon the fingers of the other. Thumbs are not used, and the index finger |
| 39 |
is reserved for the 'carry.' |
Archives