[HEADS-UP] Rawhide: /tmp is now on tmpfs
h.reindl at thelounge.net
Fri Jun 1 16:28:06 UTC 2012
Am 01.06.2012 18:21, schrieb Lennart Poettering:
> I think most of the noise in this flame thread is due to a
> misunderstanding how modern memory management works and the assumption
> that having an explicit size limit on /tmp was a bad thing, even though
> it actually is a good thing... In fact, we need much stronger limits
> than what tmpfs currently provides: per-user limits on the usage of
> /tmp. But that's something for the future...
no, you are missing the balance between POSSIBLE benefits
and side-effects and lot of work from admins and pakcages
* it is a valid workload that a application creates a 10 GB tempfile
* ok, you say: use /var/tmp
* well, i say: my whole rootfs is only 4 GB and 2 Gb are used
so waht do we do now?
i known my workload and created a 30 GB /tmp
my rootfs is large enough
/var/log and /var/cache are own partitions
the 10 GB temp-file will not be stored in /tmp where is
enough storage because yoz enforce pakcages to "fix" apllications
not use your holy /tmp for large things
the 10 GB temp-file does not fit in rootfs aka /var/tmp
the 10 GB temp-file does not fit in the memory
did you EVER think about real workloads?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the devel