[HEADS-UP] Rawhide: /tmp is now on tmpfs

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Wed Jun 20 16:49:16 UTC 2012

On 06/20/2012 05:45 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 06/20/2012 10:16 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 20.06.2012 16:11, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
>>> On 06/20/2012 03:35 PM, Chris Lumens wrote:
>>>>> Again: I'm perfectly happy if it is rejected as a feature. I don't
>>>>> really care either way. What I'd really hate to see is a checkbox
>>>>> in the
>>>>> installer so we are compelled to test both variations...
>>>> Yeah, I won't be adding any checkboxes to have people pick their /tmp
>>>> style.
>>> Then putting not putting /tmp on tmpfs is the only applicable default.
>> +100
>> a default has to be soemthing which is OK on EVERY setup
>> /tmp on tmpfs is clearly NOT OK for every setup
>> this is a possible tuning depending on environment and workload
> That's pretty specious. You're not going to see a machine that doesn't boot
> immediately after installation because /tmp is on tmpfs, so there's no
> reason
> you can't frame /not/ having it on tmpfs to be a possible tuning depending
> on environment and workload.
> Since you can look at it either way in that regard, it's completely
> reasonable
> to have the option that's best for most users as the default. As I see it,
> that's to enable tmpfs for /tmp .

Again: It is not reasonable, it's generally and basically unreliable and 
cause of instabilities and unreliablities.
Whether it's close to being "usable" depends on a user's use-case. It 
might be usable on a 32GB RAM single-user laptop, but it's complete 
non-sense otherwise.

Just have your fellow co-worker dump an arbitrary 100GB file to /tmp and 
watch your system to start misbehaving.


More information about the devel mailing list