Hi Hans, hi John, perhaps it's better to start a new thread.
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 09:51:05AM +0100, Hans Ekbrand wrote:
...
> > Put a line like this into the file /etc/fstab of your ltsp tree
> >
> > shmfs /tmp shm defaults 0 0
> > -----------------------------------------
...
> > 2) replace
> >
> > echo "Creating ramdisk on /tmp"
> > RAMDISK_SIZE=`get_cfg RAMDISK_SIZE 1024`
> > /sbin/mke2fs -q -m0 /dev/ram1 ${RAMDISK_SIZE}
> > /bin/mount -n /dev/ram1 /tmp
> >
> > with
> >
> > echo "Mounting shmfs on /tmp"
> > mount -a
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> > hope it works for you,
> It did! But I don't really know how to measure the gain in RAM. I set
> the runlevel to 3 and run "free" as first command. The smfs system
> reported 2416 free kb of RAM, and the ramdisk setup gave about 2200
> (don't remember exactly). But that's perhaps not a good measure? (Even
> if it's just some 200k of RAM, that's still 200k of RAM, so I will of
> course continue to use it).
Hans,
for me the difference is that shmfs grows and shrinks, whereas the
ram disk has a fixed size. I've found an interesting article (attached)
containing much more information than can be found in
<kernel_src_dir>/Documentation/filesystems/tmpfs.txt
----------------------------
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Mar 29 11:57:49 2002
>
> Linux doesn't seem to handle memory like this. I added this to
> /etc/fstab:
> shmfs /mnt/fubar shm defaults 0 0
>
> and mounted /mnt/fubar on two systems, one with 128MB and one with 256.
> In each case, df showed /mnt/fubar to be one half of physical RAM;
> adding swap did not change this. If this holds true for smaller
> systems, a dc with 16MB would have to get by with at most 8MB in tmp.
> Is this likely to be a problem?
John,
that's the default. You can overwrite this by skipping the entry in
/etc/fstab and using instead a line like this one in rc.local:
mount tmpfs /tmp -t tmpfs -o size=40m
the kernel will then use real memory and swap space (this has to be
available) combined with a size of 40MB as virtual memory - as far as I
understand the whole thing.
> Wolfgang, do you use tmpfs on all of your LTSP systems? Are you
> satisfied with the results? Should we all be using it?
Tried it on a few stations at home, just starting to understand.
My intention was to free up space for boxes low on ram - as Hans did.
At school there are a lot of boxes with 8MB.
Perhaps one can solve the problem posted to the list a few days ago:
Apps want to write to /tmp, but /tmp is limited to 1MB by default.
Having tmpfs mounted on /tmp, this limit does not exist, cause swap is
used automagically by tmpfs.
Another point of view is that tmpfs is needed for POSIX compliance.
Recent distros have shmfs mounted on /dev/shm due to this.
In future more and more apps may depend on the existance of tmpfs.
Wolfgang
l-fs3.html.gz
Description: l-fs3.html.gz
