Aneurin Price <aneurin.pr...@gmail.com> writes: > In anything resembling a 'normal' system (ie. the kind where one might > be using the defaults) I would say that the tmpfs correlation is so > strong as to be very nearly 1:1, and this seems like the crux of the > matter; that is after all the reason that these applications are > failing when /tmp is switched to tmpfs.
I agree that's likely for any system using a default disk layout, so my comment was irrelevant for this discussion. I still think that the easy tmpfs resizing (no meta data update, no LVM requirements, can use available space on other file systems) makes it superior for /tmp. But most users won't know that they can do this, so we might need a daemon monitoring /tmp and doing ondemand resizing. Bjørn -- 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/87lijsok60....@nemi.mork.no
