On 2012-05-28 05:44, Pandu Poluan wrote:
But my newer servers has /run (and its children) from the get go, because I
think it kind of makes sense. Even though they're udev-free.
Hm... what is using /run instead of /var/run? I thought it was (newish)
udev itself and things like systemd that
On 27-May-12 10:24, Neil Bothwick wrote:
Q1: Can I somehow reduce the size of /run?
That has been answered, either use fstab, which may or not work, or mount
-o remount, which should.
Thanks. It works after I added following line in /etc/fstab:
tmpfs /run tmpfs size=128m,mode=1777 0
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jarry mr.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
But I'm still missing answer for my second question:
Q2: Can I turn this /run in tmpfs feature off?
Up front: I don't know. Not my area of expertise, but I also don't
think you've given enough information about your system to
On 28-May-12 20:58, Michael Mol wrote:
Q2: Can I turn this /run in tmpfs feature off?
Up front: I don't know. Not my area of expertise, but I also don't
think you've given enough information about your system to really
answer.
1) Are you using openrc or systemd? (which version?)
openrc
On Mon, 28 May 2012 21:24:59 +0200
Jarry mr.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
I always liked Gentoo because it gives me complete freedom
and control over my system. *I* could decide what I want to
use or not. And I'd be very dissapointed if Gentoo one day goes
to
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Jarry mr.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28-May-12 20:58, Michael Mol wrote:
Q2: Can I turn this /run in tmpfs feature off?
Up front: I don't know. Not my area of expertise, but I also don't
think you've given enough information about your system to really
On Mon, 28 May 2012 21:24:59 +0200, Jarry wrote:
But why would you want to?
I do not see any advantage in having /run on tmpfs.
Even though you have had several benefits explained to you? Files in /run
have to be available and writeable at all times from early boot onwards,
using a hard
On Mon, 28 May 2012 20:31:39 +0200, Jarry wrote:
But I'm still missing answer for my second question:
Q2: Can I turn this /run in tmpfs feature off?
Of course you can, you have the source. However, it appears that no one
has implemented that particular feature for you yet. Maybe it is
On May 29, 2012 12:53 AM, pk pete...@coolmail.se wrote:
On 2012-05-28 05:44, Pandu Poluan wrote:
But my newer servers has /run (and its children) from the get go,
because I
think it kind of makes sense. Even though they're udev-free.
Hm... what is using /run instead of /var/run? I thought
Joshua Murphy wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Murphy wrote:
snip
Well, I don't see why not. As you say, lack of a proper clean up after
a bad shutdown can cause problems. Anything in /run would disappear
after a shutdown, clean or not, since
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Joshua Murphy poiso...@gmail.com wrote:
[ snip ]
Well, given that it's there, it cleans up after itself, and it avoids
issues in the instance where /var isn't available early on, is there
much reason _not_ to link /var/run and /var/lock over to their
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Joshua Murphy poiso...@gmail.com wrote:
[ snip ]
Well, given that it's there, it cleans up after itself, and it avoids
issues in the instance where /var isn't available early on, is
I have read through all replies, but I still did not find
answers to my original questions:
Q1: Can I somehow reduce the size of /run? I know it is tmpfs
and I know this is upper limit normally never achieved, but
I want to reduce this upper limit. Is it possible, or is it
hard-coded to half of
On Sun, 27 May 2012 09:05:46 +0200
Jarry mr.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
I have read through all replies, but I still did not find
answers to my original questions:
Q1: Can I somehow reduce the size of /run? I know it is tmpfs
and I know this is upper limit normally never achieved, but
I want to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 04:29:17 +, Joshua Murphy wrote:
Well, given that it's there, it cleans up after itself, and it avoids
issues in the instance where /var isn't available early on, is there
much reason _not_ to link /var/run and /var/lock over to their
respective equivalents on /run?
On Sun, 27 May 2012 09:05:46 +0200, Jarry wrote:
I have read through all replies, but I still did not find
answers to my original questions:
Q1: Can I somehow reduce the size of /run? I know it is tmpfs
and I know this is upper limit normally never achieved, but
I want to reduce this upper
On Sun, 2012-05-27 at 09:59 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2012 09:05:46 +0200
Jarry mr.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
I have read through all replies, but I still did not find
answers to my original questions:
Q1: Can I somehow reduce the size of /run? I know it is tmpfs
and I
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 05:17:54PM -0500, Dale wrote
I guess the devs are getting ready for the ultimate screwup udev
and friends is putting in place. Oh well. This is life.
I guess that explains why I have /var/run but no /run on my mdev-based
system. G
--
Walter Dnes
On May 28, 2012 9:11 AM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 05:17:54PM -0500, Dale wrote
I guess the devs are getting ready for the ultimate screwup udev
and friends is putting in place. Oh well. This is life.
I guess that explains why I have /var/run but
Hi,
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-blocksUsed Available Use% Mounted on
tmpfs8223848 224 8223624 1% /run
I know
Jarry wrote:
Hi,
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-blocksUsed Available Use% Mounted on
tmpfs8223848 224
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-blocksUsed Available Use% Mounted on
tmpfs
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-blocksUsed Available Use% Mounted on
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Jarry mr.ja...@gmail.com 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.
On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:08:48 +0200, Jarry wrote:
I suppose default size for tmpfs is half of physical memory,
if it is not configured somewhere else.
It is, but that is the default maximum size, a tmpfs filesystem uses
only as much memory as its contents require.
BTW, is there any way to
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
I had no idea it was doing this either until your post. I got the same
questions as you do. Why is it there?
tmpfs is frequently used in places where data doesn't need to persist
across reboots. /var/run meets this
Dale writes:
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-blocksUsed Available
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
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Michael Hampicke gentoo-u...@hadt.biz wrote:
[snip]
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.
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:08:48 +0200, Jarry wrote:
I suppose default size for tmpfs is half of physical memory,
if it is not configured somewhere else.
It is, but that is the default maximum size, a tmpfs filesystem uses
only as much memory as its contents require.
On Sat, 26 May 2012 17:17:54 -0500, Dale wrote:
It makes sure that /run is available and writeable early in the boot
process, whereas /var/run may not be and / may be mounted ro.
Mine wouldn't be since I have /var on a separate partition. I guess the
devs are getting ready for the
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:08:48 +0200, Jarry wrote:
I suppose default size for tmpfs is half of physical memory,
if it is not configured somewhere else.
It is, but that is the default maximum size, a tmpfs
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2012 17:17:54 -0500, Dale wrote:
It makes sure that /run is available and writeable early in the boot
process, whereas /var/run may not be and / may be mounted ro.
Mine wouldn't be since I have /var on a separate partition. I guess the
devs are getting
On Sat, 26 May 2012 18:17:38 -0500
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
It
appears that /run is sort of a temp thing while booting and just sort
of sticks around after getting booted, since it is there anyway. Why
not use it?
No, that is incorrect.
/run is a deliberate design decision (and a
On Sat, 26 May 2012 23:02:13 +0200
Michael Hampicke gentoo-u...@hadt.biz 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
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2012 18:17:38 -0500
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
It
appears that /run is sort of a temp thing while booting and just sort
of sticks around after getting booted, since it is there anyway. Why
not use it?
No, that is incorrect.
/run is a
On May 27, 2012 7:19 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2012 18:17:38 -0500
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
It
appears that /run is sort of a temp thing while booting and just sort
of sticks around after getting booted, since it is there anyway.
Pandu Poluan wrote:
On May 27, 2012 7:19 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com
What I was saying tho, since it appears to be needed now, since /var may
not be mounted yet, it was created and is used during booting up. Since
it is there, why not use it, even AFTER the system is booted. After
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Pandu Poluan wrote:
On May 27, 2012 7:19 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com
What I was saying tho, since it appears to be needed now, since /var may
not be mounted yet, it was created and is used during booting up. Since
it is
Joshua Murphy wrote:
Well, given that it's there, it cleans up after itself, and it avoids
issues in the instance where /var isn't available early on, is there
much reason _not_ to link /var/run and /var/lock over to their
respective equivalents on /run? And both with and without /var mounted
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Murphy wrote:
snip
Well, I don't see why not. As you say, lack of a proper clean up after
a bad shutdown can cause problems. Anything in /run would disappear
after a shutdown, clean or not, since it is in tmpfs. It
41 matches
Mail list logo
