Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 02:47:43 +0000 (UTC) From: jb <jb.1234abcd@gmail.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using TMPFS for /tmp and /var/run? Message-ID: <loom.20120331T042314-739@post.gmane.org> 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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
<deeptech71 <at> gmail.com> writes:
> ...
> > One of those reasons people stick/stuck with BSD is that we don't go
> > and change this stuff so quickly.
>
> Yes, it would be a total of ~20 years before we finally decided to switch to
> using TMPFS for /tmp.
> ...
According to TMPFS(5)
"BUGS
The tmpfs kernel implementation is currently considered as an experimen-
tal feature. Some file system mount time options are not well supported."
Perhaps there is a reason to not push "experimental" things on users ?
Btw, I hope Quotas is supported by tmpfs.
I do not know about you, but I feel differently about /tmp even as part of "/"
fs beeing bombed by mega-size files, and /tmp as /tmpfs (main memory plus swap)
getting full or even reaching some preset value and having some priority job or
its data or caches being swapped.
jb
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?loom.20120331T042314-739>