/tmp on tmpfs

[Vratislav Podzimek]

On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 14:58 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 04/06/2012 01:47 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> > On 04/06/2012 11:14 AM, Vratislav Podzimek wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 20:58 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 08:32:56PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> >>>> * #834 F18 Feature: /tmp on tmpfs -
> >>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/tmp-on-tmpfs (mitr, 17:40:06)
> >>>> * AGREED: tmp-on-tmpfs is accepted (+5 -3) (mitr, 18:12:52)
> >>>
> >>> Actually I think this is a good feature, but ...
> >>>
> >>> The feature page is wrong about "The user experience should barely
> >>> change. This is mostly a low-level change that has little visibility
> >>> to the user."
> >>>
> >>> tmpfs is different in a number of important ways:
> >>>
> >>> - it's very limited in space compared to a real disk
> >> This is the reason why I refused having /tmp as tmpfs (or even as a
> >> separate partition) few months ago. Has anybody tried to use e.g.
> >> Brasero with it? Well, if you are burning a DVD, Brasero needs about 4
> >> GB on /tmp -- not enough space in RAM or wasting a lot of disk space on
> >> having such big /tmp partition that is most of the time unused. Yes, you
> >> can tell Brasero to use some other space, but it obviously relies on
> >> volatility of the /tmp and doesn't clean after itself. I'm quite sure
> >> this is not only the case of Brasero.
> >>
> >
> > We should file bugs on those issues and add them to some tracker bug,
> > which will be created for tmpfs related issues.
> That a lost fight, because one of /tmp's primary purposes is to 
> temporarily store almost arbitrarily huge amounts of data, instead of 
> storing them in memory.
This is the key overlooked fact.

--
Vratislav Podzimek