On 15/06/2012 03:11, Serge wrote: > 2012/6/13 Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: > >>> Why do people repeat that tmpfs is easy to resize? Yes, you need about 3 >>> commands to resize tmpfs, but you need 0 (zero!) commands to resize /tmp on >>> disk, because it's large by default and you don't need to resize it. It's >>> easier to NOT resize /tmp on disk then resize /tmp on tmpfs, isn't it? ;) >> >> Obviously, you only think of /tmp as mounted on /. > > It was about /tmp on disk in general, but as long as default is to have > everything on a root partition - it does not matter where exactly it is. > For more complex configurations I suggested several "Alternatives" > (e.g. mount-bind to /home/tmp), each of them is usually better than tmpfs, > and don't need tmpfs-like resizes. > >> This is often seen as not a good move to have a user-writable directory on >> the system partition(s), since this provides for easy DOS > > DoS like what? /tmp on disk have a 5% safety limit available for system, > user can "DoS" only his own processes, and he can do that anyway. But > /tmp on tmpfs is even worse move, since it does not have 5% safety.
1) With 2TB disks, I certainly do not use 5% any more 2) Mysql, apache, postfix, all kind of vital systems, do not run as root. And if /tmp is full (and mounted on /), / is full (and so is /var). All kind of mayhem may happen there (I have seen it). >> (even involuntary; I know of people daily working with 30GB files, and >> this easily fills the / partition). > > Is there anything better for them than /tmp on disk? If it's a desktop with > single disk I would suggested them a single root partition (with /tmp on it). > If it's a server with small root but large /home on RAIDs then I would > mount-bind /tmp to /home/tmp... Learning not to use /tmp to place large files. Setting TMPDIR=/home/tmp is a start, indeed. Sincerly, -- Jean-Christophe Dubacq
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
