Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
 <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





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?loom.20120331T042314-739>