On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, T o n g wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 23:01:09 -0500, Celejar wrote:
> >> I've given up on s2ram, the kernel method (echo mem > /sys/power/state)
> >> works fine for me, at least with Kernel Mode Setting.
> >
> > I just tried that method. At first, it seemed to work wonderfull
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:32:15 +0100
Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2011-01-25 22:44 +0100, Celejar wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:02:50 +0100
> > Sven Joachim wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, that's it (compare the output of "free" before and after
> >> hibernating to convince yourself). If you don't want
On 2011-01-25 22:44 +0100, Celejar wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:02:50 +0100
> Sven Joachim wrote:
>>
>> Yes, that's it (compare the output of "free" before and after
>> hibernating to convince yourself). If you don't want to get your cache
>> blown away, use suspend (to RAM) rather than hibe
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:02:50 +0100
Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2011-01-25 21:48 +0100, Celejar wrote:
>
> > You're right; I see now that 'free' reports only 317376 free. This is
> > a laptop, and I do hibernate it a couple of times a day, so I suppose
> > that the cache(s) are thrown away to use t
On 2011-01-25 21:48 +0100, Celejar wrote:
> You're right; I see now that 'free' reports only 317376 free. This is
> a laptop, and I do hibernate it a couple of times a day, so I suppose
> that the cache(s) are thrown away to use the RAM for hibernation (and
> to avoid pointlessly saving cached di
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:35:41 +0100
Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2011-01-25 21:03 +0100, Celejar wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 08:49:57 +0100
> > Sven Joachim wrote:
> >
> >> On 2011-01-25 02:50 +0100, Celejar wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:41:07 -0600
> >> > "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr."
On 2011-01-25 21:03 +0100, Celejar wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 08:49:57 +0100
> Sven Joachim wrote:
>
>> On 2011-01-25 02:50 +0100, Celejar wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:41:07 -0600
>> > "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." wrote:
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> >> tmpfs doesn't reserve much (if any) memory
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:42:24 +0100
Jochen Schulz wrote:
> Celejar:
> >
> > I'm somewhat confused about this. My system has 2GB of RAM, and I have:
> >
> > $ uptime
> > 20:46:09 up 5 days, 5:30, 9 users, load average: 0.06, 0.09, 0.25
> >
> > $ free
> > total used
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 08:49:57 +0100
Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2011-01-25 02:50 +0100, Celejar wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:41:07 -0600
> > "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> tmpfs doesn't reserve much (if any) memory. So, unless it is being
> >> actively
> >> used by f
Celejar:
>
> I'm somewhat confused about this. My system has 2GB of RAM, and I have:
>
> $ uptime
> 20:46:09 up 5 days, 5:30, 9 users, load average: 0.06, 0.09, 0.25
>
> $ free
> total used free sharedbuffers cached
> Mem: 20651721047312101
On 2011-01-25 02:50 +0100, Celejar wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:41:07 -0600
> "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> tmpfs doesn't reserve much (if any) memory. So, unless it is being actively
>> used by files in the tmpfs, it can be used by other applications.
>
> I'm somewhat confuse
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:41:07 -0600
"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." wrote:
...
> tmpfs doesn't reserve much (if any) memory. So, unless it is being actively
> used by files in the tmpfs, it can be used by other applications.
I'm somewhat confused about this. My system has 2GB of RAM, and I have:
$
In <821513319-1295910389-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-57593962-
@bda029.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>, teddi...@tmo.blackberry.net wrote:
>Isn't messing with volatile /tmp somewhat a moot point, given that the
>Linux memory manager manages virtual memory anyway? I mean, if /tmp is
>heavily u
Isn't messing with volatile /tmp somewhat a moot point, given that the
Linux memory manager manages virtual memory anyway? I mean, if /tmp is
heavily used by your system, it will be cached in memory anyway. With 4
GB of RAM (as mentioned by kellyremo), you'll end with probably your
entire
On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 05:47 -0800, kellyremo wrote:
> "to memory" means: mounting a ~2 GByte filesystem [ tmpfs?, or
> ramfs? ], and put the "/tmp" on it. [ e.g.: 4 GByte ram in the pc ].
> what to write in the "/etc/fstab"?
>
> I would like to collect the [ answers too:P ]:
>
> Advantages:
> - M
On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 05:47 -0800, kellyremo wrote:
> "to memory" means: mounting a ~2 GByte filesystem [ tmpfs?, or
> ramfs? ], and put the "/tmp" on it. [ e.g.: 4 GByte ram in the pc ].
> what to write in the "/etc/fstab"?
>
> I would like to collect the [ answers too:P ]:
>
> Advantages:
> - M
>> Dne, 23. 01. 2011 17:19:41 je Pascal Hambourg napisal(a):
P> Tmpfs is not a RAM disk (RAM-based block device), it is a filesystem in
P> virtual memory.
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 20:39:36 +0100,
>> Klistvud said:
K> Didn't know that. Damn clever. I stand corrected.
http://landley.net/writin
Dne, 23. 01. 2011 17:19:41 je Pascal Hambourg napisal(a):
Tmpfs is not a RAM disk (RAM-based block device), it is a filesystem
in
virtual memory.
Didn't know that. Damn clever. I stand corrected.
--
Cheerio,
Klistvud
http://bufferoverflow.tiddlyspot.com
Cert
Hello,
Klistvud a écrit :
>
> Isn't messing with volatile /tmp somewhat a moot point, given that the
> Linux memory manager manages virtual memory anyway? I mean, if /tmp is
> heavily used by your system, it will be cached in memory anyway. With 4
> GB of RAM (as mentioned by kellyremo), yo
On Du, 23 ian 11, 15:46:20, Klistvud wrote:
>
> Any opinions?
No, just facts ;)
$ free
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem: 20596521847748 211904 0 153008 885512
-/+ buffers/cache: 8092281250424
Swap: 975204
Dne, 23. 01. 2011 15:08:27 je Henrique de Moraes Holschuh napisal(a):
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011, kellyremo wrote:
> "to memory" means: mounting a ~2 GByte filesystem [ tmpfs?, or
ramfs? ],
> and put the "/tmp" on it. [ e.g.: 4 GByte ram in the pc ]. what to
write
> in the "/etc/fstab"?
tmpfs
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011, kellyremo wrote:
> "to memory" means: mounting a ~2 GByte filesystem [ tmpfs?, or ramfs? ],
> and put the "/tmp" on it. [ e.g.: 4 GByte ram in the pc ]. what to write
> in the "/etc/fstab"?
tmpfs /tmptmpfs defaults,nosuid,nodev,mode=1777,size=1G
In squ
hey, i am also intertested... :)
On 2011.01.23. 14:47, kellyremo wrote:
"to memory" means: mounting a ~2 GByte filesystem [ tmpfs?, or ramfs?
], and put the "/tmp" on it. [ e.g.: 4 GByte ram in the pc ]. what to
write in the "/etc/fstab"?
I would like to collect the [ answers too:P ]:
Advant
"to memory" means: mounting a ~2 GByte filesystem [ tmpfs?, or ramfs? ], and
put the "/tmp" on it. [ e.g.: 4 GByte ram in the pc ]. what to write in the
"/etc/fstab"?
I would like to collect the [ answers too:P ]:
Advantages:
- Memory is way faster then HDD/SSD, so it could speed things up
- "S
24 matches
Mail list logo