Am 02.06.2012 19:24, schrieb Gregory Maxwell:
> Tmpfs just has the advantage of minimizing the disk activity— both in
> cases where none is needed, and in cases where it is.
you refuse to understand if some app creates a 2 GB
file in /tmp and does not remove your only pressure
is to the page-cache
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
> Am 02.06.2012 04:08, schrieb Jesse Keating:
> > The useless 2G file will get swapped out, not important things that are
> > actively being used in ram
>
> it does not matter WHAT get swapped out
> from the moment on the system starts to swap performance su
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> it does not matter WHAT get swapped out
> from the moment on the system starts to swap performance sucks
This is what I meant about being dogmatic up thread. You're being a
anti-swap zealot here.
Yes, using swap is slow. It's slow because
Am 02.06.2012 04:08, schrieb Jesse Keating:
> On 06/01/2012 09:04 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> no, you do NOT want swap-usage in most workloads at all
>
> The useless 2G file will get swapped out, not important things that are
> actively being used in ram
it does not matter WHAT get swapped out
On 02/06/12 00:05, Tomas Mraz wrote:
But that is a pretty bad situation isn't it? And it really is not so
rare situation unless users would really know not to do that.
If, for the sake of discussion, I suppress my conservative instincts and
start thinking about "How the ideal OS in the ideal wo
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 22:13 +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
> On 01/06/12 15:27, Brian Wheeler wrote:
> > And how is a random user supposed to know this?
>
> He is not and he doesn't have to know it. I have been using for couple
> of years /tmp on tmpfs, just with
>
> tmpfs/tmptmpfs defaults
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 22:13 +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
> On 01/06/12 15:27, Brian Wheeler wrote:
> > And how is a random user supposed to know this?
>
> He is not and he doesn't have to know it. I have been using for couple
> of years /tmp on tmpfs, just with
>
> tmpfs/tmptmpfs defaults,
Am 01.06.2012 18:01, schrieb Chris Adams:
> Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
>> DO NOT SPIT USELESS DATA IN MY RAM PER DEFAULT BECAUSE RAM
>> IS EXPENSIVE STORAGE AND USED FOR BETTER THINGS
>
> Actually, the data written to /tmp _always_ goes through the page cache
> and is held in RAM (at
On 01/06/12 15:27, Brian Wheeler wrote:
And how is a random user supposed to know this?
He is not and he doesn't have to know it. I have been using for couple
of years /tmp on tmpfs, just with
tmpfs/tmptmpfs defaults,nosuid,nodev 0 0
and aside from a situation when I tried to save
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 12:18 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> I'm going to chime in once to add my thoughts... It's already way too
> late for me to influence the decision (first I heard of it is "it's
> decided") so my only recourse is to add it to the long list of things
> I have to "undo" after instal
On 06/01/2012 03:55 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Not all /tmp user-cases need to move to /var/tmp
>
> sort is special in this regard in that it only uses
> external files when there isn't enough RAM.
> I.E. is expects it to be slower (larger).
Would you mind debating if anything else is "special"?
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On my 'normal' systems once the desktop is fully started with Firfox,
> Gnome, Evolution and all the crap, I already am using more than half the
> RAM available, so tmpfs in RAM means I hit swap as soon as something
> decides to write a tmp file
> I am not sure asking is the right thing, I think tmpfs in RAM should
> be an *optional* supporte dfeature for those users that have a
> workload that *will* benefit from this feature and therefore *will*
> seek it.
It could have been as easy as a checkbox in the disk partitioning screen
of the
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 12:18 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> I'm going to chime in once to add my thoughts... It's already way too
> late for me to influence the decision (first I heard of it is "it's
> decided") so my only recourse is to add it to the long list of things
> I have to "undo" after instal
On 06/01/2012 11:52 AM, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:31:21AM -0400, Brian Wheeler wrote:
Well, since I'm probably going to turn it off, can someone give me a
good reason why it should be turned _on_ by default? For me, the
"Benefit to Fedora" bullets are not compelling.
I'm going to chime in once to add my thoughts... It's already way too
late for me to influence the decision (first I heard of it is "it's
decided") so my only recourse is to add it to the long list of things
I have to "undo" after installing Fedora.
> Sorry guys, this feature sucks.
+1 on this
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
> DO NOT SPIT USELESS DATA IN MY RAM PER DEFAULT BECAUSE RAM
> IS EXPENSIVE STORAGE AND USED FOR BETTER THINGS
Actually, the data written to /tmp _always_ goes through the page cache
and is held in RAM (at least for a bit). Since many things in /tmp are
shor
On 06/01/2012 11:52 AM, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:31:21AM -0400, Brian Wheeler wrote:
>> Well, since I'm probably going to turn it off, can someone give me a
>> good reason why it should be turned _on_ by default? For me, the
>> "Benefit to Fedora" bullets are not com
Am 01.06.2012 17:52, schrieb Alexey I. Froloff:
> One good reason is to separate /tmp from /. When choosing
> between failed sort and failed passwd (or anything else, that
> modifies files in /), both because of "No space left on device"
> error I prefer failed sort and working passwd.
and exat
Am 01.06.2012 16:23, schrieb Alexey I. Froloff:
>> Sorry guys, this feature sucks.
> I like this feature, and there should be easy, well documented
> way to turn it off. I personally don't see a reason why it
> should be off by default
so you can add 1 line to /etc/fstab since many years
this
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:31:21AM -0400, Brian Wheeler wrote:
> Well, since I'm probably going to turn it off, can someone give me a
> good reason why it should be turned _on_ by default? For me, the
> "Benefit to Fedora" bullets are not compelling.
One good reason is to separate /tmp from /.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 03:35:45PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> (That said, we have even bigger problems coming up with Restricted
> ("Secure") Boot!)
To be fair, this problem is not one of our own doing.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
vi
On 06/01/2012 10:23 AM, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 09:27:16AM -0400, Brian Wheeler wrote:
my biggest problem was that tmpfs by
default allocates half of physical RAM for partition. So I just
allocated big enough swap and added a line to /etc/fstab with
appropriate size=
On 06/01/2012 10:23 AM, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 09:27:16AM -0400, Brian Wheeler wrote:
my biggest problem was that tmpfs by
default allocates half of physical RAM for partition. So I just
allocated big enough swap and added a line to /etc/fstab with
appropriate size= op
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 09:27:16AM -0400, Brian Wheeler wrote:
> > my biggest problem was that tmpfs by
> > default allocates half of physical RAM for partition. So I just
> > allocated big enough swap and added a line to /etc/fstab with
> > appropriate size= option.
> And how is a random user sup
On 06/01/2012 02:47 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 02:12 PM, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:21:25PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>>> Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Fedora 18 will ship with
> I certainly disagree ... this change is not reasonable.
>
>>
On 06/01/2012 02:12 PM, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:21:25PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Fedora 18 will ship with
I certainly disagree ... this change is not reasonable.
this change, and applications need to be updated to hand
Brian Wheeler wrote:
> And how is a random user supposed to know this? So if things start
> acting up the answer is to add more swap and mess with fstab? WTF? So
> now any software which uses /tmp for gasp temporary space is now
> potentially broken depending on the size of the temporary data.
>
On 06/01/2012 08:12 AM, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
my biggest problem was that tmpfs by
default allocates half of physical RAM for partition. So I just
allocated big enough swap and added a line to /etc/fstab with
appropriate size= option.
And how is a random user supposed to know this? So if
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:21:25PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Fedora 18 will ship with
> this change, and applications need to be updated to handle the change,
> or we will have a more broken Fedora 18. Advising people not to patch
> programs won't ma
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Sergio Durigan Junior
wrote:
> On Thursday, May 31 2012, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> So I'll patch sort to default to /var/tmp rather than /tmp.
>
> Please don't. As many pointed out, there are many disadvantages in
> doing this, and I really do not think we should b
31 matches
Mail list logo
