2012/5/25 Neil Williams wrote: > Do you not use swap?
I use it for suspend-to-disk. > Yes you lose functionality but functionality takes up resources, so > something has to give. Which functionality will I lose by placing /tmp on the real disk? > The vast majority of systems have large amounts of swap, so tmpfs never > runs out until the swap space is full - it just gets very, very much > slower. Right, system will become unusable and user will press Reset button far before that. >> Assuming you've set your tmpfs size to 20% you need 2.5GB memory just >> to "temporarily" unpack kernel sources and check for some files. > And? The machines I use to unpack and repack kernel packages handle that > quite nicely. Since we're talking about default settings, you assume default debian system to have at least 2.5GB just to be able to unpack kernels? > Different hardware -> different software selection. I don't understand your point. I could understand it if we were choosing among benefits that most users get from /tmp being on disk and /tmp being on tmpfs. But there're NO benefits in having /tmp on tmpfs. It works (not works better, just works somehow) only on systems with a lot of RAM. And nobody still named any popular programs, that can definitely benefit from that. While there're many programs that either break or may render system unstable. Yes, /tmp on tmpfs works in many cases. But /tmp on disk works always. Why would we select the worst of these two options? I don't understand, do you suggest to break some applications and make system less stable for nothing? What's a good part? -- Serge -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOVenEr24CyHFALpn5J0mnfqLk+S3ovHqL+=bMR6qr-rVH=9...@mail.gmail.com
