2012/6/13 Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: >> Why do people repeat that tmpfs is easy to resize? Yes, you need about 3 >> commands to resize tmpfs, but you need 0 (zero!) commands to resize /tmp on >> disk, because it's large by default and you don't need to resize it. It's >> easier to NOT resize /tmp on disk then resize /tmp on tmpfs, isn't it? ;) > > Obviously, you only think of /tmp as mounted on /.
It was about /tmp on disk in general, but as long as default is to have everything on a root partition - it does not matter where exactly it is. For more complex configurations I suggested several "Alternatives" (e.g. mount-bind to /home/tmp), each of them is usually better than tmpfs, and don't need tmpfs-like resizes. > This is often seen as not a good move to have a user-writable directory on > the system partition(s), since this provides for easy DOS DoS like what? /tmp on disk have a 5% safety limit available for system, user can "DoS" only his own processes, and he can do that anyway. But /tmp on tmpfs is even worse move, since it does not have 5% safety. > (even involuntary; I know of people daily working with 30GB files, and > this easily fills the / partition). Is there anything better for them than /tmp on disk? If it's a desktop with single disk I would suggested them a single root partition (with /tmp on it). If it's a server with small root but large /home on RAIDs then I would mount-bind /tmp to /home/tmp... -- Serge -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caoveneq556_lkm4rblvynfx5ako1qgcllk-kg4jrgxke4vn...@mail.gmail.com