Hi, Hilton Chain via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix@gnu.org> writes:
> Hi all, > > On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 04:24:17 +0800, > Saku Laesvuori via Bug reports for GNU Guix wrote: >> >> [1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>] >> > > I vote for TMPFS, since that would also reduce flash wear. >> > > Honestly I don't get why it's not already using TMPFS. >> > >> > One argument could be how much ram it takes: >> > >> > $ du -sc /run/* >> > 12 /run/blkid >> > 0 /run/booted-system >> > 0 /run/current-system >> > 1312 /run/setuid-programs >> > 524 /run/udev >> > 1848 total >> > >> > That is with no explicit setuid programs configured, on a machine with a >> > fairly minimal configuration. >> > >> > Not a *huge* amount of ram, but not nothing, either... >> >> I'd say it's effectively nothing for almost all devices capable of >> running Guix. On my laptop the size of /run is 4804 (4.7M). In a quick >> test one terminal window with only zsh running in it took almost 10 >> times as much ram. >> [2 signature.asc <application/pgp-signature (7bit)>] >> No public key for 257D284A2A1D3A32 created at 2023-07-22T04:24:17+0800 using >> RSA > > I'm currently using tmpfs for /tmp, /run and /var/run on my Guix > Systems. Without reviewing how our code base uses /run, it seems reasonable that this should be on a tmpfs. Can anyone think of a reason not to do so? Otherwise, I suggest we make it so. -- Thanks, Maxim