From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 31 02:47:56 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01ACE1065679 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 02:47:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-current@m.gmane.org) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB19A8FC0C for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 02:47:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SDoM5-0000tf-8v for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 04:47:53 +0200 Received: from np-19-75.prenet.pl ([np-19-75.prenet.pl]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 04:47:53 +0200 Received: from jb.1234abcd by np-19-75.prenet.pl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 04:47:53 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org From: jb Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 02:47:43 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <4F746F1E.6090702@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4F74BCE8.2030802@vangyzen.net> <20120330.151848.41706133.sthaug@nethelp.no> <4F765682.5040707@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 79.139.19.75 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/10.0.2) Subject: Re: Using TMPFS for /tmp and /var/run? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 02:47:56 -0000 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