Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 21:09:52 -0400 From: Andrew J Caines <A.J.Caines@halplant.com> To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Good practice for /tmp Message-ID: <20010906210952.X55388@hal9000.servehttp.com> In-Reply-To: <20010906192746.D18481-100000@topperwein.dyndns.org>; from behanna@zbzoom.net on Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 07:31:36PM -0400 References: <20010906055708.P55388@hal9000.servehttp.com> <20010906192746.D18481-100000@topperwein.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chris, [Please CC as I'm not sub'ed to -questions at the moment] > > I think it more accurate to say that the storage device which backs this > > filesystem is the system's VM. The filesystem simply provides the > > semantics for the I/O. > > Uhh, what happens when your machine panics? With a VM-backed > swap, savecore can't grab the crash dump; therefore, you can't get a > traceback. "VM-backed swap" is meaningless. VM - virtual memory - is the memory storage interface which is presented to processes. This storage is usually a combination of RAM and disk manged cleverly to amke as much I/O as fast as possible by keeping the more active pages in RAM. If your machine panics, then if you are correctly configured to collect cores, then you should get one as normal. What makes you think that a tmpfs changes this? -Andrew- -- ______________________________________________________________________ | -Andrew J. Caines- Unix Systems Engineer A.J.Caines@halplant.com | To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010906210952.X55388>