On 01/04/14 11:16, Ian Collins wrote:
> Tom Robinson wrote:
>> On 01/04/14 11:00, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> Tom Robinson wrote:
>>>> Possibly it would look something like this:
>>>>
>>>> Filesystem           Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
>>>> /dev/vda1           1008M  239M  719M  25% /
>>>> tmpfs                499M     0  499M   0% /dev/shm
>>>> /dev/vdb1            248M   33M  203M  14% /boot
>>>> /dev/vdc1           1008M   34M  924M   4% /home
>>>> /dev/vdd1            504M   17M  462M   4% /tmp
>>>> /dev/vde1            3.0G  477M  2.4G  17% /usr
>>>> /dev/vdf1           1008M  104M  854M  11% /var
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If you felt the need (is /tmp really a volume?) to yes.  Given VMs tend to 
>>> have a dedicated
>>> function, is there anything to be gained from such fine grained 
>>> partitioning?  You will run into
>>> all sorts of problems if you want to image a VM built in this way.
>>>
>> Yes, /tmp is a volume, not mapped to memory. RHEL has this legacy. It could 
>> survive on the main,
>> root partition with little issue but years of RHEL training says otherwise. 
>> See my other post about
>> why one would slice up a volume this way.
>
> I see.  From a Solaris admin's perspective, it looks like something we did in 
> the 90s :)
>
I remember one of the main issues with /tmp on the root volume was when running 
the X on the system.
I won't elaborate on why but given that none of the systems will be running X I 
could safely ignore
that.




-------------------------------------------
smartos-discuss
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/184463/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/184463/25769125-55cfbc00
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=25769125&id_secret=25769125-7688e9fb
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to