On Mon, 2016-07-25 at 14:27 +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > Hello All, > > On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 20:41 +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 13:38 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > > > > You are using `survives reboots' as a proxy for `on disk'; and using > > > `on disk' as a proxy for `has enough space for large amounts of data'. > > > > Yes. :-) > > > > > > > > I don't think this is a good approach. > > > > > > It's true that /tmp has traditionally been smaller than /var/tmp, > > > partly as an accident of partition and filesystem layout. > > > > > > As a practical matter, there are big performance gains to be had from > > > not requiring across-reboot (and, particularly, across-crash) > > > persistence. > > > > > > Perhaps the right answer is instead that we should simply configure > > > more swap by default ? (IIRC tmpfs data can be swapped.) > > > > Yes. But that's not the default in our setups. Perhaps next step is to file > > a > > wishlist bug report. > > > > > > Lots of folks on the list mentioned about swap. I wasn't very clear on how > that'd work. So I reached out to the tmpfs maintainer.
It is a shame that you didn't read more carefully what he said. > From what Hugh explained > (email attached), the size allocated to tmpfs (or rather /tmp on tmpfs) does > not > change. It is a fixed size (kernel default to 50% of RAM). That is a *limit* on the size allocated to it. > The benefit of tmpfs over ramfs (previous implementation) is that > tmpfs can be resized live. [...] He said ramdisk, not ramfs. A ramdisk has a fixed size. A ramfs has a variable size, like tmpfs, but its files are never swapped. It's intended for processors without an MMU. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Knowledge is power. France is bacon.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
