Paul de Weerd <we...@weirdnet.nl> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 01:29:47PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > | > Sadly, no :-( > | > > | > But I should be able to accomplish what I need using rc.firsttime and > | > a tiny bit of hackery. > | > | Sadly, no :-( > | > | What I was aiming for was to have the newly installed machines come > | up with a 2GB MFS /tmp and a ~20GB /var/tmp. But MFS /tmp really > | needs help in the system boot scripts. > > Why? I've been running with MFS /tmp for *years* on several machines. > > This indeed required some changes when /var/tmp was changed into a > symlink to /tmp, but that was really no issue at all. > > There's very little difference between a /tmp on disk and a /tmp in > RAM (through mfs): both get mounted during boot at the same time. > > [weerd@pom] $ grep /tmp /etc/fstab > swap /tmp mfs rw,nodev,noatime,async,nosuid,-s=8388608 > [weerd@pom] $ df -h /tmp > Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on > mfs:12547 3.9G 227M 3.5G 6% /tmp > > | The critical part for us is that /var/tmp not overwhelm /var, and > | we can get that with the current scheme by sizing /tmp accordingly. > > Having /var/tmp not overwhelm /var is accomplished by having /var/tmp > symlink to /tmp (assuming /var and /tmp are on separate filesystems). > If you need more room in /var/tmp then you want to assign to your MFS > /tmp, then you need a different solution - but that's probably > something that can also be solved in a different way (don't use > /var/tmp for temporary storage, but another (dedicated) location for > whatever needs to write so much there).
What hasn't been mentioned is why /var/tmp was made into a symbolic link to /tmp. Is your /var/tmp a seperate filesystem? Can I have a temporary account to demonstrate the consequences of filling /var?
