Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 16:15:04 +0200 From: Rainer Duffner <rainer@ultra-secure.de> To: Gary Palmer <gpalmer@freebsd.org> Cc: deeptech71@gmail.com, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using TMPFS for /tmp and /var/run? Message-ID: <20120401161504.49003b73@linux-wb36.example.org> In-Reply-To: <20120401134025.GC76647@in-addr.com> 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> <20120401134025.GC76647@in-addr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:40:25 -0400 schrieb Gary Palmer <gpalmer@freebsd.org>: > Other than catching software that mistakenly assumes /tmp > and/or /var/run is persistent, what are the CLEAR advantages for > changing the default? It's my understanding it improves performance in cases where lots of files are created and deleted in /tmp (and/or /var/tmp - sometimes software hard-codes these locations...). Out of my head, things like spamassassin and amavis/clamav come to mind. Maybe the pkg-message of these packages should be adjusted so that this is mentioned? OTOH, on new installs, a TMPFS could be used automatically if memory >= 4GB.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120401161504.49003b73>