On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:20:56PM +0300, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote: > On 23:58 Tue 17 May , Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > > ... > > I'd add that if we want /run to be on tmpfs, /var/run and /tmp should > > both be on tmpfs by default. I've been doing this manually for a year, > > and so have other distributions. > > > > Hi, > > A quick look at the size of my desktop's /tmp is: > > spirit@Vereniki ~ $ du -sh /tmp/ > 641M /tmp/ > spirit@Vereniki ~ $ > > Maybe it's just me (cause of the way I'm using /tmp, eg. I use that dir > to unpack sources of packages I want to temporarily look inside and > for anything else *temporary*, also some programs (eg. browsers) use it > for temporary storage) but if there are others like me, I don't > think we'd like to do this in RAM space (tmpfs). For /run and /var/run > dirs it's ok I suppose.
If you want /tmp to be a tmpfs, that is pretty easy to do through fstab (I do that here actually). I'm not sure whether we want to force that on a distribution level or not though. The directories that would be affected by having /run on tmpfs would be /var/run and /var/lock. The suggested way of doing this is to have /var/run linked to /run and /var/lock linked to /run/lock. William
pgpCsw5QUlPJc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
