On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > > [...] > > All modern Unix platforms support RAM based filesystems. For performance > > + > > +FIXME: this is not true for Linux 2.2 kernels > > + > > [...] > > # Linux (Kernel 2.4.x), /etc/fstab: > > tmpfs /tmp tmpfs size=64m,noatime 0 0 > > [...] > > Sure, that's why I talk about "modern" here ;) I think it's ok because we > explicitly show in the entry that it's for 2.4... Or what do you recommend to > "fix" this?
IMHO to whole sentence (box?) is obsolete and not relevant to the topic. Furthermore claiming 2.4 to be modern does not mean that 2.2 is out-dated. Up to now 2.2 is still kernel of choice for many many Linux admins til there aren't any major flaws in 2.4 for many many releases. Additionaly it is not relevant by design cause file system operations are async by default resulting in a "rather" fair performance. But nevertheless both performance and OS design are not subject of the article (primarily) and should not be discussed here. There are also good point why not to use /tmp/. For example you should consider limitations in capacity. Not everybody has got a big box with 2 gigs of RAM or more. Furhtermore in the past I have seen /tmp/ file systems with strange mount options (strange to our requirements :) like noexec. I guess some packages wouldn't build on such file systems. You see there a many point to be aware of and discussing all of them will blow up the whole article. -- Christoph Schug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cable & Wireless Deutschland - Landsberger Strasse 155 - D-80687 Muenchen ______________________________________________________________________ The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org Developer Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
