On Tuesday 07 November 2006 04:49, Duncan wrote:
> Getting a bit worried by comments so far.
sorry, but this just stinks of lame
-mike
pgpBicjwkPwiI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 12:29, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Roy Marples wrote:
> > Actually, before I do that, let me attack this from another angle.
> > What do you gain from keeping it mounted as a ramdisk?
> > If the answer is performance, well you loose performance at start time as
> > you've lo
Roy Marples wrote:
Actually, before I do that, let me attack this from another angle.
What do you gain from keeping it mounted as a ramdisk?
If the answer is performance, well you loose performance at start time as
you've lost the deptree.
So why would you want to keep it?
read-only nfsroot
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 10:50, Roy Marples wrote:
> > I'm using that now and hope to keep it. I went with the suggested
> > size=2m (tmpfs). df says 184KB used, so that's quite big enough and then
> > some, but on Linux the free space isn't actually allocated until it's no
> > longer free space
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 09:49, Duncan wrote:
> Getting a bit worried by comments so far. You ARE planning to keep the
> OPTION of keeping a tmpfs (or whatever) mounted svcdir, right (an option
> to keep it mounted that way after the boot level, is how I guess it'd
> work)?
Actually we mount i
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 03:23, Sven Köhler wrote:
> After reading all the concerns and doubt and things, i ask myself:
>
> why not keep in a tmpfs?
>
> Well, it can be swapped out too, and it isn't too much data anyway, is it?
Only linux has a non specific tmpfs - ie it just uses what it needs
