On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 6:36 AM, James Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:08:38AM -0500, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
>> >I was unable to reproduce on 13.1.0.
>>
>> My apologies - I wrote without realizing that I haven't experience
>> this with recent 13.1.0 builds (but I do remember it on 13.1
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:08:38AM -0500, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
> >I was unable to reproduce on 13.1.0.
>
> My apologies - I wrote without realizing that I haven't experience
> this with recent 13.1.0 builds (but I do remember it on 13.1.0 -
> maybe it was on the initial builds).
No worries. Ye
I was unable to reproduce on 13.1.0.
My apologies - I wrote without realizing that I haven't experience this
with recent 13.1.0 builds (but I do remember it on 13.1.0 - maybe it was
on the initial builds).
I definitely do currently experience the too-small-tmp-size with my
(customized) 12.1
I was unable to reproduce on 13.1.0.
df /var/tmp had shown 51200 blocks.
Then I changed /etc/fstab to increase size=50m to size=60m and
rebooted.
df /var/tmp now shows 61440 blocks.
--
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
___
Devel mailing list
D
Since the recent discussion of which release is most reliable for remote
deployments, I've started actually putting 12.1.0 to use in place of
11.3.1. One thing I notice is that (despite me customizing /etc/fstab
with entries having reasonable "size=" values), on both 12.1.0 and
13.1.0 'df' sho