David Douthitt wrote:
> Andrew Hoying wrote:
>
> > The virtual file systems in 2.4, Like tmpfs which I've been using, don't
> > need to be 'made' before being used. This is another advantage.
>
> Means I may have to handle preparing for a mount differently depending
> on filesystem type?
Well, I modified the root.sysconf for mounting to read:
--
lrc "Creating ram disk for logs ($RAMSIZE Megs)..."
mkdir -p /var/log
# mkram /dev/ram1 $RAMSIZE /var/log
mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /var/log -o rw,nodev,noexec,nosuid,size=16m
lrc "tmpfs mounted on /var/log"
--
and
--
lrc "Creating ram disk for temporary files ($RAMSIZE Megs)..."
mkdir -p /tmp
# mkram /dev/ram2 $RAMSIZE /tmp
mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /tmp -o rw,nodev,noexec,nosuid,size=32m
chmod 1777 /tmp
lrc "tmpfs mounted on /tmp"
--
Obviously the 16m and 32m can be changed to a variable so that the size can
be set at boot time.
>
> > The only advantage I can see to
> > using a 'real' file system would be to apply the ext2
> compression patch and
> > use ext2, which could save on memory usage at the cost of cpu usage.
>
> ext2 also gives you the ability to use Linux file attributes for even
> finer and stronger host security.
Tmpfs supports all posix file attributes, which should be enough for most
lrp boxes. Considering the speed hits that ext2 incurs for file writes to a
ramdisk partition, the much larger kernel size, and the size of the ext2
utilities, I'm still not convinced it's the best thing for LRP.
Andrew Hoying
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
