On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com wrote:
One possible issue is that stale sort tmp files could persist
in /var/tmp for 30 days even after a reboot.
I'm going to err on the side of leaving sort(1) as is
and using /tmp by default, as detailed at:
On 09/13/2012 03:54 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
I'm going to err on the side of leaving sort(1) as is
and using /tmp by default, as detailed at:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/coreutils/2012-09/msg00139.html
This is the perfect solution for all the people who
will switch /tmp back to disk
On 05/31/2012 11:45 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 05/31/2012 08:14 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
On 05/31/2012 02:40 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya!
Please be aware that since the most recent systemd uploads /tmp is now
in tmpfs by default in Rawhide/F18.
[...]
This will most likely lead to a
On 07/12/2012 09:54 PM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
Again.. tmpfs is restricted to half the RAM size by default. You can't
store 8-9GB of trash.. only 2GB, which might land on swap over time.
As I have already pointed out some time ago, isn't a bizarre situation
that as an application developer I can
On 07/13/2012 09:14 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
On 07/12/2012 09:54 PM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
Again.. tmpfs is restricted to half the RAM size by default. You can't
store 8-9GB of trash.. only 2GB, which might land on swap over time.
As I have already pointed out some time ago, isn't a bizarre
On 07/13/2012 10:14 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
On 07/13/2012 09:14 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
On 07/12/2012 09:54 PM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
Again.. tmpfs is restricted to half the RAM size by default. You can't
store 8-9GB of trash.. only 2GB, which might land on swap over time.
As I have
Am 12.07.2012 21:54, schrieb Harald Hoyer:
Again.. tmpfs is restricted to half the RAM size by default. You can't
store 8-9GB of trash.. only 2GB, which might land on swap over time.
is it limited to half the RAM or 2 GB?
on my machine half the RAM is 8 GB
what about a application storing 4
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/06/12 19:42, Brian Wheeler wrote:
On 06/01/2012 12:21 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
I think most of the noise in this flame thread is due to a
misunderstanding how modern memory management works and the
assumption that having an
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:43 PM, David Sommerseth dav...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/06/12 19:42, Brian Wheeler wrote:
On 06/01/2012 12:21 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
I think most of the noise in this flame thread is due to a
misunderstanding
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to said:
I had been testing /tmp on tmpfs, but turned it off because it was hiding
/tmp where httpd had dumped a lot of core files which I was having trouble
removing.
There is
On 06/20/2012 08:06 PM, Brian Wheeler wrote:
So the default is that I can use 2G in /tmp regardless of how much swap is
present if the system memory size is 4G? So the only way to get more /tmp is
to either mess with the max% or buy more ram?
Let's say it in this way:
on a 4GB machine if
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 16:57 -0400, Brian Wheeler wrote:
I know that we've been told that this is a done deal and that everyone
should just get over it, but this is a feature that I think truly sucks
for a lot of reasons and there hasn't been any _actual_ benefits that
have been proven for
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Tomas Mraz tm...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 16:57 -0400, Brian Wheeler wrote:
I know that we've been told that this is a done deal and that everyone
should just get over it, but this is a feature that I think truly sucks
for a lot of reasons and
Additionally, it's been turned on in rawhide.
Rawhide nightlies have been failing, though, so how do we test this?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:09 AM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
Additionally, it's been turned on in rawhide.
Rawhide nightlies have been failing, though, so how do we test this?
. . .or anything else? Wait until it composes, and then test. Unfortunately.
-J
--
devel mailing list
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:09:48 -0400,
DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
Additionally, it's been turned on in rawhide.
Rawhide nightlies have been failing, though, so how do we test this?
Run rawhide. You can do this by installing F17 and yum upgrading to rawhide.
There is an issue with
Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to said:
I had been testing /tmp on tmpfs, but turned it off because it was hiding
/tmp where httpd had dumped a lot of core files which I was having trouble
removing.
There is probably some tricky way to bind mount / and get at that
Yep, not
Again: I'm perfectly happy if it is rejected as a feature. I don't
really care either way. What I'd really hate to see is a checkbox in the
installer so we are compelled to test both variations...
Yeah, I won't be adding any checkboxes to have people pick their /tmp
style.
- Chris
--
devel
On 06/20/2012 03:35 PM, Chris Lumens wrote:
Again: I'm perfectly happy if it is rejected as a feature. I don't
really care either way. What I'd really hate to see is a checkbox in the
installer so we are compelled to test both variations...
Yeah, I won't be adding any checkboxes to have
Am 20.06.2012 16:11, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
On 06/20/2012 03:35 PM, Chris Lumens wrote:
Again: I'm perfectly happy if it is rejected as a feature. I don't
really care either way. What I'd really hate to see is a checkbox in the
installer so we are compelled to test both variations...
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 08:44:38AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Matthias Clasen wrote:
Its not his ignorance - he's on vacation for the next two weeks...
Brian replied to Lennart 7 minutes after Lennart's e-mail and
On Thu, 21.06.12 00:01, Joel Rees (joel.r...@gmail.com) wrote:
If Puttering really went on vacation after dropping a bombshell like
My name is Poettering, not Puttering.
community to do the grunt work on his Master's thesis on things that
My master's thesis? Nah, no thanks, already got a
On 06/20/2012 10:16 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 20.06.2012 16:11, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
On 06/20/2012 03:35 PM, Chris Lumens wrote:
Again: I'm perfectly happy if it is rejected as a feature. I don't
really care either way. What I'd really hate to see is a checkbox in the
installer so we
Since you can look at it either way in that regard, it's completely
reasonable to have the option that's best for most users as the
default. As I see it, that's to enable tmpfs for /tmp .
Given a choice between works for everyone and works well for most,
but fails in obscure ways for some,
On 06/20/2012 05:45 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
On 06/20/2012 10:16 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 20.06.2012 16:11, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
On 06/20/2012 03:35 PM, Chris Lumens wrote:
Again: I'm perfectly happy if it is rejected as a feature. I don't
really care either way. What I'd really hate to
Am 20.06.2012 18:49, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
Since you can look at it either way in that regard, it's completely
reasonable
to have the option that's best for most users as the default. As I see it,
that's to enable tmpfs for /tmp .
Again: It is not reasonable, it's generally and
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
i bet now someone is coming up wth he must not dump a 100 Gb file to /tmp
this is the wrong perspective
the right one is the system must not crash if someone does
Good thing it doesn't.
--
devel mailing list
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Thats not true (and I've used tmpfs for tmp for years, so I'm speaking
from experience)— tmpfs is backed by swap on demand. Just add the
space that you would have used for /tmp to your swap.
I am _very_ concerned about
So, how does this scenario work?
* The machine has 4G of RAM,
* 50% RAM is being used by actual software (firefox, eclipse, mail
client, etc), so the other 50% is pagecache
* The machine has 4G of swap, none of which is active.
So then a user drops a 8.5G DVD image into /tmp.
On a
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jef Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com wrote:
As a sysadmin...for a multi-seat configuration in a home network
environment...do I really need to anticipate maximum large file tmp
usage in calculating my swap partition size for my multi-user family?
8 gigs of ram... so
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Tmpfs volumes have a size set as a mount option. The default is half
the physical ram (not physical ram plus swap). You can change the size
with a remount. When its full, its full, like any other filesystem
Okay that
Once upon a time, Brian Wheeler bdwhe...@indiana.edu said:
So, how does this scenario work?
* The machine has 4G of RAM,
* 50% RAM is being used by actual software (firefox, eclipse, mail
client, etc), so the other 50% is pagecache
* The machine has 4G of swap, none of which is active.
On 06/20/2012 01:41 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
What happens when I have 2 users who are both downloading dvd iso
sized images into /tmp as well as other things going on. Remind me...
where does firefox by default cache in progress downloads for the
Open in facility. Isn't it down in tmp?
On 20/06/12 18:55, Chris Adams wrote:
2G gets written and then -ENOSPC. 2G gets pushed to swap.
The default for tmpfs mounts is an fs that is sized to RAM/2.
What is the scenario,
where it's a KVM host and 3/4 physical ram is assigned to Guests?
--
Regards,
Frank
Jack of all, fubars
--
On 06/20/2012 01:55 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Brian Wheeler bdwhe...@indiana.edu said:
So, how does this scenario work?
* The machine has 4G of RAM,
* 50% RAM is being used by actual software (firefox, eclipse, mail
client, etc), so the other 50% is pagecache
* The machine
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
it is simply a fact that drop a 100 or 200 Gb file into tmpfs
will bring down each machine existing currently and in the next
No, it won't.
Also, the default partitioning scheme for the existing Fedora setup
(with /tmp on /) also
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Jef Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Tmpfs volumes have a size set as a mount option. The default is half
the physical ram (not physical ram plus swap). You can change the size
with a
Am 20.06.2012 19:18, schrieb Gregory Maxwell:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
i bet now someone is coming up wth he must not dump a 100 Gb file to /tmp
this is the wrong perspective
the right one is the system must not crash if someone does
Am 20.06.2012 19:41, schrieb Gregory Maxwell:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jef Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com wrote:
As a sysadmin...for a multi-seat configuration in a home network
environment...do I really need to anticipate maximum large file tmp
usage in calculating my swap partition
On 06/20/2012 02:16 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Jef Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Tmpfs volumes have a size set as a mount option. The default is half
the physical ram (not physical
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Brian Wheeler bdwhe...@indiana.edu wrote:
But in any case the I/O advantages have never been shown, despite multiple
requests by myself and others.
I posted some example numbers earlier in this thread. e.g. make on an
already compiled firefox source was half
On 06/02/2012 03:44 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 15:57 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
it's a bad design to ask the end user about this kind of thing
during installation.
IIRC, I suggested a checkbox in the disk partitioning page, where
we're already asking the user all sorts of
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 04:53 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 06/02/2012 03:44 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 15:57 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
it's a bad design to ask the end user about this kind of thing
during installation.
IIRC, I suggested a checkbox in the disk
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 02:20:02PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
It, in fact, provides proof that this feature is searching for a
problem. Which applications require gigabytes per second throughput out
of /tmp?
sort(1) and maybe mock(1) ;-)
(and your numbers for tmpfs would equal ext4
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 13:50 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Brian Wheeler wrote:
How is this change a win?
Unfortunately, due to Lennart's ignorance (we're all ignorant of
something), he will consider your e-mail flame-bait and not reply.
Its not his ignorance - he's on vacation for
Matthias Clasen wrote:
Its not his ignorance - he's on vacation for the next two weeks...
Brian replied to Lennart 7 minutes after Lennart's e-mail and mine was
an hour after that as a pretty good indication Lennart was not going to
reply. Unless the timing was coincidental of him packing his
Am 04.06.2012 12:50, schrieb Alexey I. Froloff:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 02:20:02PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
It, in fact, provides proof that this feature is searching for a
problem. Which applications require gigabytes per second throughput out
of /tmp?
sort(1) and maybe mock(1)
Am 04.06.2012 15:36, schrieb Matthias Clasen:
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 13:50 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Brian Wheeler wrote:
How is this change a win?
Unfortunately, due to Lennart's ignorance (we're all ignorant of
something), he will consider your e-mail flame-bait and not reply.
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 08:44:38AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Matthias Clasen wrote:
Its not his ignorance - he's on vacation for the next two weeks...
Brian replied to Lennart 7 minutes after Lennart's e-mail and mine was
an hour after that as a pretty good indication Lennart was
Olav Vitters wrote:
Expecting and more or less demanding a reply after calling someone
ignorant... not nice behaviour.
My intentions were not to insult anyone and I am not seeking a reply to
my e-mail.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 05/31/2012 12:18 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 30.05.12 19:04, Garrett Holmstrom (gho...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
If you have an explicit /tmp entry in fstab things should continue to
work the same as before. If you don't then you will now get a tmpfs on
/tmp by default.
What does
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:59:09PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Well, not just FHS, but traditional usage within Red Hat and Fedora. For
as long as I can remember, /tmp has had a 10-day retention and /var/tmp
30-day.
Does that matter?
We still have 10d and 30d clean-up for that. With
So everyone needs to go out and buy twice as much RAM so F18+ can run /tmp as
tmpfs without causing memory shortfalls
for everything else they do.
That's crazy.
.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 09:27:03AM -0400, Brian Wheeler wrote:
The wiki page lists the features as:
[...]
* /tmp is automatically flushed at boot.
It seems like adding an rm to the startup sequence would do this with less
surprises.
Wait, hold on a sec. Again, not necessarily a problem but
...@draigbrady.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Cc: Roberto Ragusa m...@robertoragusa.it
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 12:45:36 PM
Subject: Re: [HEADS-UP] Rawhide: /tmp is now on tmpfs
On 05/31/2012 08:14 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
On 05/31/2012 02:40 AM
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
So everyone needs to go out and buy twice as much RAM so F18+ can run /tmp as
tmpfs without causing memory shortfalls
for everything else they do.
That's crazy.
Thats not true (and I've used tmpfs for tmp for years, so I'm
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:05:26AM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
So everyone needs to go out and buy twice as much RAM so F18+ can run /tmp
as tmpfs without causing memory shortfalls
for everything else they do.
That's
On 06/01/2012 11:05 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
So everyone needs to go out and buy twice as much RAM so F18+ can run /tmp
as tmpfs without causing memory shortfalls
for everything else they do.
That's crazy.
Thats not true
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
Wait a minute. Back in this thread it says that half of RAM is allocated to
the tmpfs for /tmp.
Plus the purported benefit from this is causing less write cycles on SSD.
(See Wiki page)
That may have been a benefit a few
Once upon a time, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net said:
Wait a minute. Back in this thread it says that half of RAM is allocated to
the tmpfs for /tmp.
Not exactly. The default size limit for a tmpfs mount is half of RAM;
the RAM is not allocated exclusively to the tmpfs. The files in a tmpfs
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:27:01AM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
Wait a minute. Back in this thread it says that half of RAM is
allocated to the tmpfs for /tmp.
No-no-no! Default tmpfs size is half of physical RAM, that's
all. That doesn't mean that is stays in RAM forever.
$ df -h /tmp
On 06/01/2012 11:35 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Because that disk activity only happens when the kernel decides that
it wants the memory for something else it doesn't happen at all in a
great many cases especially for short lived files.
...
The feature may be adopted/promoted on the basis of
Once upon a time, Brian Wheeler bdwhe...@indiana.edu said:
Um, aren't both of those benefits the same as one would get when using
ext4's delayed allocation?
Delayed allocation still has to flush metadata changes to storage
regularly as well as possibly read metadata from storage to find
Am 31.05.2012 12:45, schrieb Pádraig Brady:
Currently `sort` defaults to $TMPDIR or if not set '/tmp'.
Now /var/tmp should be more persistent which we don't need,
but shouldn't be an issue, but should also not be in RAM
and so is more appropriate.
So I'll patch sort to default to
Am 01.06.2012 17:05, schrieb Gregory Maxwell:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
So everyone needs to go out and buy twice as much RAM so F18+ can run /tmp
as tmpfs without causing memory shortfalls
for everything else they do.
That's crazy.
Thats not
Am 01.06.2012 17:35, schrieb Gregory Maxwell:
The feature may be adopted/promoted on the basis of SSD writecycle
preservation, but tmpfs also offers considerable performance
improvements for workloads that create/remove files in /tmp at high
speed— which is the reason that many people have
Am 01.06.2012 17:44, schrieb Gerry Reno:
Well, I don't have any workloads that are doing high-speed create/remove of
file in /tmp.
And I don't think most people have any of those types of workloads either.
Wouldn't it make sense that people with those types of workloads could enable
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
thank you for breaking setups of well thought virtual machines
on expensive SAN storages with a as small as possible rootfs
with a own virtual disk for /tmp with new defaults
If you are mounting a filesystem on /tmp, it'll be in
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:44:12AM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
Well, I don't have any workloads that are doing high-speed create/remove of
file in /tmp.
And I don't think most people have any of those types of workloads either.
I do, but ext4 handles my workload marvelously. For high-speed
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 11:02 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
thank you for breaking setups of well thought virtual machines
on expensive SAN storages with a as small as possible rootfs
with a own virtual disk for /tmp with new defaults
On Fri, 01.06.12 16:19, Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:05:26AM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
So everyone needs to go out and buy twice as much RAM so F18+ can run
/tmp as tmpfs
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
well designed machines do NOT swap and have not alligend
swap at all - in the case of virtualization you MUST NOT
enforce swapping if you really like perofrmance
I'm sorry, I couldn't quite hear you— perhaps more
2012/6/2 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
well designed machines do NOT swap and have not alligend
swap at all - in the case of virtualization you MUST NOT
enforce swapping if you really like perofrmance
I'm
The feature may be adopted/promoted on the basis of SSD writecycle
preservation,
I'm about to put in an SSD boot disk, so I care about this argument,
but I'm still not using tmpfs, for my reasons stated previously.
but tmpfs also offers considerable performance improvements for
workloads
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:27 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
This conclusion is NOT TRUE for me. I've checked it. /tmp on ext3 on
my system does NOT incur any disk I/O until long after the process
using it has finished, if at all, as long as the files are small and
transient.
Glad to
On 06/01/2012 12:27 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
The feature may be adopted/promoted on the basis of SSD writecycle
preservation,
I'm about to put in an SSD boot disk, so I care about this argument,
but I'm still not using tmpfs, for my reasons stated previously.
but tmpfs also offers considerable
On 06/01/2012 12:21 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
I think most of the noise in this flame thread is due to a
misunderstanding how modern memory management works and the assumption
that having an explicit size limit on /tmp was a bad thing, even though
it actually is a good thing... In fact, we
Once upon a time, Simo Sorce s...@redhat.com said:
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 11:02 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
thank you for breaking setups of well thought virtual machines
on expensive SAN storages with a as small as possible rootfs
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 12:58 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Simo Sorce s...@redhat.com said:
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 11:02 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
thank you for breaking setups of well thought virtual machines
If they really aren't transient then /tmp is the wrong place for them.
I will categorically disagree with any argument of the the user
shouldn't be doing that type. Software exists to serve the user, not
the other way around.
Besides, I often don't realize that a file isn't transient until
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:28 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
If they really aren't transient then /tmp is the wrong place for them.
I will categorically disagree with any argument of the the user
shouldn't be doing that type. Software exists to serve the user, not
the other way around.
Your quoting removed the fact that I was responding a statement that
ram was the wrong place. I was simply extending the comment. If
you're willing to say that ram is the wrong place for something then
there is nothing user hostile to say tmp is too.
Wrong in general has been used here as a
Brian Wheeler wrote:
How is this change a win?
Unfortunately, due to Lennart's ignorance (we're all ignorant of
something), he will consider your e-mail flame-bait and not reply.
Not a single person who has claimed a performance or semantic win for
this /tmp move has replied when asked for
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 14:46 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
IMHO *telling* the user how to manage /tmp is wrong, whichever side of
the argument you're on. *Asking* them how to manage it is the right
way. That was my point in that mail.
*I* want /tmp on disk. I still don't want someone else
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:50:55PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Not a single person who has claimed a performance or semantic win for
this /tmp move has replied when asked for proof.
$ time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/file bs=1M count=10240
10240+0 records in
10240+0 records out
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:46 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
*I* want /tmp on disk. I still don't want someone else telling me I
have to do it that way.
You can still put tmp on a disk if you're the kind of advanced users
who knows better enough to override the defaults.
But there does
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 06:21:28PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
ext3 otoh means must be on disk in the end, [...]
This is plainly not true. If you create a file and immediate delete
it, ext3 won't write the data to disk (metadata is slightly different,
but in any case very small).
What are
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:00:57PM +0400, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:50:55PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Not a single person who has claimed a performance or semantic win for
this /tmp move has replied when asked for proof.
$ time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/file
Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
$ time dd [snip]
Does that counts as a proof?
It, in fact, provides proof that this feature is searching for a
problem. Which applications require gigabytes per second throughput out
of /tmp?
(and your numbers for tmpfs would equal ext4 once you started swapping)
--
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote:
Not a single person who has claimed a performance or semantic win for
this /tmp move has replied when asked for proof.
I haven't bothered because I have no clue what you'll accept and I
fully accept you to move the
On 06/01/2012 03:00 PM, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:50:55PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Not a single person who has claimed a performance or semantic win for
this /tmp move has replied when asked for proof.
$ time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/file bs=1M count=10240
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 03:22:32PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote:
Not a single person who has claimed a performance or semantic win for
this /tmp move has replied when asked for proof.
I haven't bothered because I
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 11:56 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 14:46 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
IMHO *telling* the user how to manage /tmp is wrong, whichever side of
the argument you're on. *Asking* them how to manage it is the right
way. That was my point in that mail.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I haven't bothered because I have no clue what you'll accept and I
fully accept you to move the goalposts.
Fedora application usage.
For example, I build firefox in /tmp which is on tmpfs for me because
on mostly finished trees the make is about 40% faster than with it
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 23:00 +0400, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:50:55PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Not a single person who has claimed a performance or semantic win for
this /tmp move has replied when asked for proof.
$ time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/file bs=1M
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 15:28 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
I think the question here is can someone please point to a page with
numbers that justify /tmp - tmpfs be the default for the most common
cases ?
laptop / vm with limited RAM.
No, that's the question in the main thread. This subthread is
it's a bad design to ask the end user about this kind of thing
during installation.
IIRC, I suggested a checkbox in the disk partitioning page, where
we're already asking the user all sorts of questions about the
filesystem layout and mount points (including putting /tmp on a
separate
Once upon a time, Simo Sorce s...@redhat.com said:
Ok, say I have installed my new laptop and discover that the new /tmp
arrangement is not good for me and I'd rather keep /tmp on disk, how do
you go about that ? (No I do not have any un-partitioned space left, and
using the root file system
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
and that does also patch all applications back which starts
using /var/tmp like sort as default for their temp-files?
I keep seeing sort as the primary example: how often are people sorting
multi-gigabyte files? I've been running
Am 01.06.2012 18:02, schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
thank you for breaking setups of well thought virtual machines
on expensive SAN storages with a as small as possible rootfs
with a own virtual disk for /tmp with new defaults
If you are
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
