Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 00:49:26 +0200 From: deeptech71@gmail.com To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using TMPFS for /tmp and /var/run? Message-ID: <4F78DB76.9070705@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmomD7fem2ceaFH1q5LQ8pOHyWO3G_XW90Q-OoNOvAnRY=g@mail.gmail.com> References: <4F746F1E.6090702@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4F74BCE8.2030802@vangyzen.net> <CACM2%2B-7Ahn6J=CTASe0g48%2BSD2vvLVd_hG3DRZmvO31QszG5Xw@mail.gmail.com> <20120330.151848.41706133.sthaug@nethelp.no> <CADGWnjXj5W_UCHPExNjxHgq3EZHP1GwocnK4kOHLch5y3gNG0A@mail.gmail.com> <4F765682.5040707@gmail.com> <CAJ-VmomD7fem2ceaFH1q5LQ8pOHyWO3G_XW90Q-OoNOvAnRY=g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 30 March 2012 17:57,<deeptech71@gmail.com> wrote: >> C. P. Ghost wrote: >>> >>> Not clearing /tmp on reboot has been >>> the norm for way too long and it is too late to change now. >> >> >> We either evolve or be in a stalemate forever. > > No, you do it in a sensible, controlled fashion. Does anyone see a conflict between the last 2 statements? Gary Palmer wrote: > Other than catching software that mistakenly assumes /tmp and/or /var/run > is persistent, what are the CLEAR advantages for changing the default? Gearing towards more common systems in the modern world. > Has consideration been paid to low-memory systems? I personally wouldn't use TMPFS, because I have a rather low amount of RAM (512MiB).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F78DB76.9070705>