On 28/11/11 18:07, Camaleón wrote:
Hello,
I'm running an updated wheezy and today faced with this little
problematic.
While running Midnight Commander to open (on-the-fly decompression for
browsing the archive) the kernel source package (a ~75 MiB .tar.bz2 file)
I got this error:
http://picpaste.com/mc-error-YXdyRawO.gif
My Atom based netbook is not a powerful system but has 2 GiB of ram and
250 hard disk so, what was happening?
"df -H" told me:
S.ficheros Tamaño Usado Disp Uso% Montado en
/dev/sda2 247G 7,7G 239G 4% /
tmpfs 5,3M 4,1k 5,3M 1% /lib/init/rw
tmpfs 212M 664k 211M 1% /run
tmpfs 5,3M 0 5,3M 0% /run/lock
tmpfs 423M 423M 0 100% /tmp <--- here!
udev 1,1G 0 1,1G 0% /dev
tmpfs 423M 238k 423M 1% /run/shm
Okay, so /tmp is full. Fine. I know how to solve it but I can foresee
more situations like this in the future so some questions arise. As the
current tmpfs default settings for /tmp seem a bit "unrealistic" (just %
20 of the RAM?) for even doing common tasks:
1/ How many room should be set for a "/tmp" partition? I never had it one
so I can't make any good estimation.
2/ Would be better to simply disable tmpfs for "/tmp"? This is how I've
been doing all these years.
Any comments are welcome :-)
I don't use tmpfs for /tmp for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, some of my PCs don't have much RAM (as low as 32MB), so it's
just not practical, and on the others I sometimes store up to 4.7GB of
files to put on DVDs.
I know that I could create tmpfs filesystems bigger than that and they
would use swap when physical RAM is exceeded, but that would slow the
systems down to an almost unusable level.
I'd rather either not have /tmp as a separate file system, or allocate
at least 10GB to it. Disk is still cheaper than RAM, although slower.
--
Dom
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ed3e4ae.8010...@rpdom.net