| 1 |
Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 05 September 2012 10:02:49 Philip Webb wrote: |
| 3 |
>> 120905 Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 20:42:56 -0400, Philip Webb wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> What is the best line for /etc/fstab ? The only example I have is |
| 6 |
> : |
| 7 |
>>>> 'tmpfs /tmp tmpfs defaults,noatime,mode=1777 0 0' |
| 8 |
>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> This doesn't seem to limit the size in any way. |
| 10 |
>>> 'man mount' explains it all ... |
| 11 |
>> Well, it outlines it (smile). |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>>> ... but the option you want is size, which defaults to 50 % . |
| 14 |
>> That looks ok : I assume that's the maximum, |
| 15 |
>> ie it doesn't take up that much memory unless it's needed. |
| 16 |
> The kernel only uses as much tmpfs as it needs at any given time. If it |
| 17 |
> needs more than has been specified, it starts rolling less active parts |
| 18 |
> out to swap. So if you don't have a lot of memory, you can still specify |
| 19 |
> more tmpfs than you have RAM and everything will just work. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> The only reason I specify a large tmpfs is to be able to compile Libre |
| 22 |
> Office. At other times it just isn't used. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I let mine default to half of ram but when I need to compile LOo, then I |
| 27 |
have to manually increase it. I guess 8Gbs isn't enough. Come to think |
| 28 |
of it, I updated LOo the other day and it didn't complain about it being |
| 29 |
less than 8Gbs. I guess it doesn't need as much as it used to. Code |
| 30 |
clean up?? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I might also add, I see no speed improvements in putting portages work |
| 33 |
directory on tmpfs. I have tested this a few times and the difference |
| 34 |
in compile times is just not there. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Dale |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
:-) :-) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
Archives