On Sat, 26 May 2012 23:02:13 +0200 Michael Hampicke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Am 26.05.2012 22:28, schrieb Dale: > > Jarry wrote: > >> On 26-May-12 22:01, Dale wrote: > >>> Jarry wrote: > >>>> > >>>> after updating baselayout from 2.0.3 to 2.1-r1 /run is mounted > >>>> as tmpfs. But I can not find any mount-option for controlling > >>>> how much memory is (or could be) used for it. > >>>> > >>>> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on > >>>> tmpfs 8223848 224 8223624 1% /run > >>>> > >>>> I know it does not use 8GB right now, yet I'd like to reduce > >>>> it to some lower value, not half of my physical memory. > >>>> How can I do it? Can I simply add line in fstab like: > >>>> > >>>> none /run tmpfs size=128m 0 0 ??? > >>>> > >>>> Jarry > >>> > >>> Holy smoke ! Mine is doing the same thing. > >>> tmpfs 7.9G 260K 7.9G 1% /run > >>> > >>> But I also have this: > >>> tmpfs 7.9G 0 7.9G 0% /var/tmp/portage > >>> > >>> So, between those two, I could run out of ram since I have 16Gbs. > >>> > >>> There is now TWO people that needs a answer to this question. > >>> Why does it need that much anyway? It looks to me like a few > >>> hundred Mbs, like Jarry posted, would be plenty. Jeepers > >>> creepers. lol > >>> > >>> Dale > >> > >> I suppose default size for tmpfs is half of physical memory, > >> if it is not configured somewhere else. > >> > >> BTW, is there any way to turn this great feature off? > >> What is it good for? I do not see any advantage in having > >> /run on tmpfs... > >> > >> Jarry > > > > > > I had no idea it was doing this either until your post. I got the > > same questions as you do. Why is it there? Why so much is > > allocated to it? Where can we change the settings for this > > questionable "feature"? > > > > I'm hoping someone will come along and answer both our questions. > > I'm really hoping for a place we can change the settings. I don't > > mind it being there so much if it is useful. I would like to know > > its purpose tho. > > As Michael Mol already said, tmpfs for the run dir is not a bad thing, > it, it does not eat all your ram :) > I however have a different question: Why do we need a new /run when we > already have /var/run. There's no mention of /run in the FHS either. > I only see udev stuff under /run - So it's another crazy udev > thing? :) > /var can fail to mount, then you have no /var/run. FHS isn't much as standards go. It's a bunch of good ideas (some less so than others but it has always been just good (unenforceable) ideas. As to why only udev stuff is in /run, that's because udev is the only thing you have that's using it (currently). That might change, but it's up to individual package authors. -- Alan McKinnnon [email protected]
