From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 30 10:48:08 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F65216A41F for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:48:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [83.120.8.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8810943D49 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:48:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (ilclej@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j7UAm4b1084417 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:48:05 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id j7UAm4ax084416; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:48:04 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:48:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200508301048.j7UAm4ax084416@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Rely-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <4312AEE0.8080806@mac.com> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-stable User-Agent: tin/1.5.4-20000523 ("1959") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386)) Cc: Subject: Re: Sysinstall automatic filesystem size generation. X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:48:08 -0000 Chuck Swiger wrote: > Jon Dama wrote: > > yes, that's quite generous. > > > > why isn't /tmp just an mfs mount though? > > While I like that suggestion personally, some people get perturbed about files > in /tmp going away if the power fails or you reboot. Then those people should use /var/tmp instead of /tmp. Traditional UNIX behaviour is that contents of /var/tmp must survive a reboot, while contents of /tmp are not guaranteed to survive a reboot (and in fact, /tmp might be cleaned completely at regular time intervals via a periodic cron job or similar). That's why vi puts its recovery files under /var/tmp, not /tmp. However, there are still cases where it's not desirable to make /tmp a memory-based file system, e.g. on systems that have little RAM and/or no swap (or NFS swap). Also, some people argue that a UFS disk partition with softupdates (or even async) is fast enough for most purposes to be mounted on /tmp. (For what it's worth, I've seen systems set up in a way to newfs the /tmp partiton on reboot.) Therefore, I think the best solution would be to make it an option in sysinstall: If the user doesn't create a separate partiton for /tmp in the partition editor, ask him whether he would like to make /tmp a memory-based file system. Or implement a special hotkey in the partition editor for creating a memory-based file system -- I guess this would be the easiest way to implement it. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "I invented Ctrl-Alt-Delete, but Bill Gates made it famous." -- David Bradley, original IBM PC design team