<r...@tutanota.com> wrote: > Dear OpenBSD Community, > > I have been playing around with OpenBSD for ~2 weeks now, and I find > myself very much at home in a system that puts correctness and careful > development first. Needless to say that I have already made my first > donation; I sincerely thank the developers for their time and effort. > > I plan to commit fully to OpenBSD on my laptop as soon as 6.4 stable > is out, but before doing so, I have one remaining question: > > I would like to have either an mfs or tmpfs instance mounted at /tmp. > I have already managed this by using an appropriate entry in fstab, > but I have noticed, that the system also works, if fstab contains NO > entry for /tmp. > > The first part of is: What is the default behavior in this case? Is an > instance of mfs/tmpfs mounted with default parameters? > > The second part to my question is: What is the key difference between > mfs and tmpfs? Should I prefer one over the other? > > The last part of my question concerns caching chromium data in /tmp. > I have read that the OpenBSD chromium port has been "pledged" and > "unveiled". Does this have any influence over whether I can run > chrome --disk-cache/dir=/tmp/chrome? > > Thank you for taking the time to read my question. > > Kind regards, > R.
hello, if you don't put any /tmp in fstab, /tmp comes from the / partition, which doesn't have nodev and nosuid mount options, and which is very tiny. tmpfs has been disabled: see https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=148173068424515&w=2 main difference between mfs and tmpfs. mfs is a ffs mounted from memory and will use the memory reserved for it, while tmpfs will use memory only when it's really used. If you give 500 MB to mfs, it will be instantly used in your memory, even if you have 0 file in it. I don't know for chromium.
