Re: Why is tmpfs not working on OpenBSD?

On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 09:54:52AM -0700, Chris Bennett wrote: > On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 12:44:59AM +, iio7 wrote: > > > > Why isn't it removed? It is kinda "misguiding". > > > > > > Shucks, you must feel terrible about our decision. > > > > Well, compared to the fact that you, back in 2016,

Re: Why is tmpfs not working on OpenBSD?

On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 12:44:59AM +, iio7 wrote: > > > Why isn't it removed? It is kinda "misguiding". > > > > Shucks, you must feel terrible about our decision. > > Well, compared to the fact that you, back in 2016, wrote that, > "We don't spend hours of our time adding unimportant notes to

Re: Why is tmpfs not working on OpenBSD?

Unless you explicitly want tmpfs, there's "mfs" for ram based temporary filesystems. /Alexander On September 5, 2021 9:59:26 AM GMT+02:00, iio7 wrote: ># mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /home/foo/tmp/ >mount_tmpfs: tmpfs on /home/foo/tmp: Operation not supported > >Sent w

Re: Why is tmpfs not working on OpenBSD?

On Monday, September 6th, 2021 at 12:50 PM, Marc Espie wrote: > On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 10:12:33PM +, iio7 wrote: > > > > On 2021-09-05, iio7 < > > > > > > i...@protonmail.com > > > > > > w

Re: Why is tmpfs not working on OpenBSD?

onmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /home/foo/tmp/ > > > > > === > > > > > > > > > > mount_tmpfs: tmpfs on /home/foo/tmp: Operation not su

Re: Why is tmpfs not working on OpenBSD?

On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 10:12:33PM +, iio7 wrote: > > On 2021-09-05, iio7 < > i...@protonmail.com > > wrote: > >> # mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /home/foo/tmp/ > >> mount_tmpfs: tmpfs on /home/foo/tmp: Operation not supported > > > It isn't built into th

Re: Why is tmpfs not working on OpenBSD?

t; > > > > > > > On 2021-09-05, iio7 < > > > > > > > > > > i...@protonmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /home/foo/tmp/ > > > > > >

Re: Why is tmpfs not working on OpenBSD?

>> iio7 wrote: >>> instead of giving these useless comments, that you apparently >>> have got plenty of time to do, you should actually provide some >>> kind of useful information somewhere! > deraadt wrote: >> or we could decide we don't owe whiners like you anything >> and continue to focus

Re: Why is tmpfs not working on OpenBSD?

On Sunday, September 5th, 2021 at 10:41 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote: > iio7 i...@protonmail.com wrote: > > > > On 2021-09-05, iio7 < > > > > > > i...@protonmail.com > > > > > > w

Re: Why is tmpfs not working on OpenBSD?

> On 2021-09-05, iio7 < i...@protonmail.com > wrote: >> # mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /home/foo/tmp/ >> mount_tmpfs: tmpfs on /home/foo/tmp: Operation not supported > It isn't built into the standard kernels, disabled with this commit:: > revision 1.229 > date: 2016/

Re: Why is tmpfs not working on OpenBSD?

iio7 wrote: > On Sunday, September 5th, 2021 at 10:41 PM, Theo de Raadt > wrote: > > > iio7 i...@protonmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On 2021-09-05, iio7 < > > > > > > > > i...@protonmail.com > > >

Re: Why is tmpfs not working on OpenBSD?

iio7 wrote: > > On 2021-09-05, iio7 < > i...@protonmail.com > > wrote: > >> # mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /home/foo/tmp/ > >> mount_tmpfs: tmpfs on /home/foo/tmp: Operation not supported > > > It isn't built into the standard kernels, disabled with this com

Why is tmpfs not working on OpenBSD?

# mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /home/foo/tmp/ mount_tmpfs: tmpfs on /home/foo/tmp: Operation not supported Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com/) Secure Email.

Re: Why is tmpfs not working on OpenBSD?

On 2021-09-05, iio7 wrote: > # mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /home/foo/tmp/ > mount_tmpfs: tmpfs on /home/foo/tmp: Operation not supported It isn't built into the standard kernels, disabled with this commit:: revision 1.229 date: 2016/07/25 19:52:56 disable tmpfs because it receives zero mainta

Re: Why is tmpfs not working on OpenBSD?

just put the line swap/ramfs mfs rw,nodev,nosuid,-s=300m 0 0 into /etc/fstab (-s means size) and run # mount /ramfs On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 07:59:26AM +, iio7 wrote: > # mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /home/foo/tmp/ > mount_tmpfs: tmpfs on /home/foo/tmp: Operation not sup

Re: Clarification about mfs/tmpfs on /tmp

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 12:59:27PM +0200, Eivind Eide wrote: > I was not able to get correct permissions on my mfs /tmp until I put > the following in /etc/rc.securelevel, which solved the problem. > /bin/chmod 1777 /tmp That is not the right solution. The right one is to unmount /tmp (boot to

Re: Clarification about mfs/tmpfs on /tmp

I was not able to get correct permissions on my mfs /tmp until I put the following in /etc/rc.securelevel, which solved the problem. /bin/chmod 1777 /tmp -- Eivind Eide "ONLY THOSE WHO ATTEMPT THE IMPOSSIBLE WILL ACHIEVE THE ABSURD" - Oceania Association of Autonomous Astronauts

Re: Clarification about mfs/tmpfs on /tmp

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:20:32AM +0200, Felix Maschek wrote: | | On 10/9/18 11:46 PM, Alexander Hall wrote: | > On a sidenote, 777 is not the proper permissions for /tmp. | | | What is the proper permission for /tmp? 1777 (you need to enable the sticky bit on the directory, see sticky(8) for

Re: Clarification about mfs/tmpfs on /tmp

On 10/9/18 11:46 PM, Alexander Hall wrote: On a sidenote, 777 is not the proper permissions for /tmp. What is the proper permission for /tmp? ~Felix

Re: Clarification about mfs/tmpfs on /tmp

Alexander wrote: > When you create and mount an mfs, its root node will "inherit" (or copy) the > permissions of the mount point. > When you mount an ffs filesystem, it already has an existing root node from > the time it was newfs'd, which will not be modified based on the underlying > mount

Re: Clarification about mfs/tmpfs on /tmp

On October 9, 2018 6:17:05 PM GMT+02:00, r...@tutanota.com wrote: >I recall having to do this as well (in fact, as mentioned earlier >in this thread): > >> doas chmod 777 /tmp > >If I understood Stuart Henderson correctly, then > >> This one is easy, simply set the appropriate permissions >> on

Re: Clarification about mfs/tmpfs on /tmp

I recall having to do this as well (in fact, as mentioned earlier in this thread): > doas chmod 777 /tmp If I understood Stuart Henderson correctly, then > This one is easy, simply set the appropriate permissions > on the directory where you mount the mfs. implies that irrespective of what is

Re: Clarification about mfs/tmpfs on /tmp

On 10/8/18 11:27 PM, r...@tutanota.com wrote: chrome --disk-cache/dir=/tmp/chrome? This works fine for me. BTW, I've set up a RAM based /tmp directory using the following /etc/fstab entry:     #/dev/sd0f /tmp ffs rw,nodev,nosuid 1 2     swap /tmp mfs rw,noexec,nodev,nosuid,-s=512m 0 0 But

Re: Clarification about mfs/tmpfs on /tmp

This is a reply to both Stuart Henderson and Gregor Best. > This one is easy, simply set the appropriate permissions on the > directory where you mount the mfs. Will do. > [...] it's assumed that the relevant support is compiled into the > kernel [...] I understand. Than it would be a matter

Re: Clarification about mfs/tmpfs on /tmp

On 10/9/18 2:03 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2018-10-09, wrote: >> Solene Rapenne wrote: >>> hello, >> >>> if you don't put any /tmp in fstab, /tmp comes from the / partition, which >>> doesn't have nodev and nosuid mount options, and which is very

Re: Clarification about mfs/tmpfs on /tmp

On 2018-10-09, wrote: > Solene Rapenne wrote: >> hello, > >> if you don't put any /tmp in fstab, /tmp comes from the / partition, which >> doesn't have nodev and nosuid mount options, and which is very tiny. > >> tmpfs has been disabled: see >> https://marc

Re: Clarification about mfs/tmpfs on /tmp

ache/dir=/tmp/chrome? >> [...] I don't know about the specifics of telling chrome to cache in /tmp/chrome, but FWIW, I have a 2G MFS mounted to ~/.cache. It seems to work fine that way. > [...] > main difference between mfs and tmpfs. mfs is a ffs mounted from memory and > will use

Re: Clarification about mfs/tmpfs on /tmp

Solene Rapenne wrote: > hello, > if you don't put any /tmp in fstab, /tmp comes from the / partition, which > doesn't have nodev and nosuid mount options, and which is very tiny. > tmpfs has been disabled: see > https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech=148173068424515=2 > <https:/

Re: Clarification about mfs/tmpfs on /tmp

ank the developers for their time and effort. > > I plan to commit fully to OpenBSD on my laptop as soon as 6.4 stable > is out, but before doing so, I have one remaining question: > > I would like to have either an mfs or tmpfs instance mounted at /tmp. > I have already manage

Clarification about mfs/tmpfs on /tmp

and effort. I plan to commit fully to OpenBSD on my laptop as soon as 6.4 stable is out, but before doing so, I have one remaining question: I would like to have either an mfs or tmpfs instance mounted at /tmp. I have already managed this by using an appropriate entry in fstab, but I have noticed

Re: mounting tmpfs ???

4 11:07, sven falempin wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Stuart Henderson < > > s...@spacehopper.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 2016/12/14 10:44, sven falempin wrote: > > > > > [130]-[~]

Re: mounting tmpfs ???

s...@spacehopper.org> > > wrote: > > > > > On 2016/12/14 10:44, sven falempin wrote: > > > > [130]-[~] > > > > # ktrace mount_tmpfs -s20M tmpfs /foo > > > > mount_tmpfs: tmpfs on /foo: Operation not supported > &

Re: tmpfs

Sun, 31 Jul 2016 20:44:05 +0200 mxb [...] > I asked. > So this one you can send to /dev/null. Привет mxb, Говорит /dev/ноль, один раз только, послушайте осторожно, пожалуйста. The fact you're being answered to, is out of politeness. Because you talk in public, and

Re: tmpfs

ng great job. > > > > > Original message From: Theo de Raadt <dera...@openbsd.org> Date: 8/2/16 21:13 (GMT+01:00) To: Sonic <sonicsm...@gmail.com> Cc: bytevolc...@safe-mail.net, Marc Espie <es...@nerim.net>, misc <misc@openbsd.org> Subject: Re: tmpfs >> On Tue, A

Re: tmpfs

t>, misc <misc@openbsd.org> Subject: Re: tmpfs > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Theo de Raadt <dera...@openbsd.org> wrote: > > Whoa.  You haven't read the first paragraph of current.html, let me > > include it here: > > > >     Active OpenBSD deve

Re: tmpfs

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote: > I see you have selected only the parts of my reply which suit you. > > The rest of my reply clearly stated we don't have people to do the > work you want. > >> I doubt I'm the only non-developer who counts on that file to

Re: tmpfs

> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > Whoa. You haven't read the first paragraph of current.html, let me > > include it here: > > > > Active OpenBSD development is known as the -current branch. These > > sources are frequently compiled into

Re: tmpfs

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote: > Whoa. You haven't read the first paragraph of current.html, let me > include it here: > > Active OpenBSD development is known as the -current branch. These > sources are frequently compiled into releases known as

Re: tmpfs

> I'm one of the guys who would very much like working tmpfs. Actually, it > has worked "good enough for me", but there are a few issues at work. > > - I lack the time needed to fully dive into the kernel part. > - naddy did say multiple times it doesn't go all

Re: tmpfs

>I don't know why this thread got out of hand. But, as the OP I really >had just two points. One was that, like myself, there may have been >many others using tmpfs (due to the upbeat announcement of its >inclusion). This is OpenBSD. Things change. > And that two, there was no in

Re: tmpfs

I don't know why this thread got out of hand. But, as the OP I really had just two points. One was that, like myself, there may have been many others using tmpfs (due to the upbeat announcement of its inclusion). And that two, there was no indication of its removal in the "following -current

Re: tmpfs

Marc Espie wrote: On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 02:53:43AM -0400, Eric Furman wrote: ... Nope, I'm rather sure Theo doesn't care one way or the other. I'm one of the guys who would very much like working tmpfs. Actually, it has worked "good enough for me", but there are a few issues at

Re: tmpfs

p already. > > > > This. But I'd say there's more to it. > > > The guy was just being a troll and Theo saw right through him. > At the risk of sounding like a troll myself since I don't know the whole > story behind tmpfs, I am going to guess that the tmpfs fiasco was >

Re: tmpfs

That is why I wanted that the openbsd related USENET groups do not be deleted. In USENET there is more tolerance toward "stupid" questions, toward more off-topic. USENET is there just for dialog, not for archiving important postings. But no one was interested here on the groups. Rodrigo. On

Re: tmpfs

On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 02:53:43 -0400 Eric Furman <ericfur...@fastmail.net> wrote: > The guy was just being a troll and Theo saw right through him. > At the risk of sounding like a troll myself since I don't know the > whole story behind tmpfs, I am going to guess that the tmpfs fiasc

Re: tmpfs

and Theo saw right through him. At the risk of sounding like a troll myself since I don't know the whole story behind tmpfs, I am going to guess that the tmpfs fiasco was not one of Theo's finest hours and he doesn't want to be reminded of it. OpenBSD has moved on from tmpfs and the issue

Re: tmpfs

performed in pauses between diving in kernel code. Now how is this in any way related to tmpfs? I have no idea :) -- Before enlightenment - chop wood, draw water. After enlightenment - chop wood, draw water. Marko Cupać https://www.mimar.rs/

Re: tmpfs

mxb wrote: ... For someone who "doesn't use tmpfs" or "doesn't care that much" about it, you sure are making a racket on this thread.

Re: tmpfs

On 23:02 Sun 31 Jul, mxb wrote: > Mine is sane. No, it's not. Your email contains valid UTF-8 symbols but mime states that it is in us-ascii: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Really, just shut up and fix it. It's that simple :)

Re: tmpfs

Baikal too! > On 31 juli 2016, at 22:13, ʞiᴌᴌʍᴀᴎ ḂØԲH wrote: > > Alpine is great! > > _ > U N I X L e g i o n . c o m > hacking the world > Network operations center > +593 995 956811 | +593 7 2952-763 > > """This email and any files transmitted with it

Re: tmpfs

Mine is sane. Yours just couple of thousands years after. Fix yours. > On 31 juli 2016, at 21:46, Consus wrote: > > On 20:53 Sun 31 Jul, mxb wrote: >> ?? ?? ?? ??, ?? . >> ?? ?? ??

Re: tmpfs

Alpine is great! _ U N I X L e g i o n . c o m hacking the world Network operations center +593 995 956811 | +593 7 2952-763 """This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are

Re: tmpfs

For Trumps sake Kids, put some gloves on and do it like proper coders or grab a drink together and talk it out… Hugs, Steve > On 31 Jul 2016, at 19:54, mxb wrote: > > Who gives a sh*t?! > Ppl supporting OpenBSD community what matters - with userbase without users is >

Re: tmpfs

On 20:53 Sun 31 Jul, mxb wrote: > ?? ?? ?? ??, ?? . > ?? ?? ?? ??. Also fix your goddamn mail client. Your encoding is shit.

Re: tmpfs

Else it is just a discussion. > On 31 juli 2016, at 20:48, Consus wrote: > > drama

Re: tmpfs

Good one. But private messages are not appreciated So misc is in loop. Sorry to pollute your private space. > On 31 juli 2016, at 20:38, Karel Gardas wrote: > > Could you be so kind and move this conversation out of misc@ > > Thanks! Karel > > On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 7:54 PM,

Re: tmpfs

Как у нас говорят, за базар надо отвечать. В Швеции ему это предоставится. > On 31 juli 2016, at 20:47, mxb wrote: > > Я Русский, и что с этого? > >> On 31 juli 2016, at 20:37, Aioi Yuuko

Re: tmpfs

On 19:54 Sun 31 Jul, mxb wrote: > Who gives a sh*t?! > Ppl supporting OpenBSD community what matters - with userbase without users is > like masturbating. > > Ppl like me test public diffs on live equipment, donate money and buy CDs so > Theo can continue to milk this project > so he can bike in

Re: tmpfs

Я Русский, и что с этого? > On 31 juli 2016, at 20:37, Aioi Yuuko wrote: > > Stop making Russians look bad. Some of us like OpenBSD

Re: tmpfs

He didn’t answered about mirrors. I asked. So this one you can send to /dev/null. > On 31 juli 2016, at 20:37, Aioi Yuuko wrote: > > See your previous message re: mirrors.

Re: tmpfs

Could you be so kind and move this conversation out of misc@ Thanks! Karel On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 7:54 PM, mxb wrote: > Who gives a sh*t?! > Ppl supporting OpenBSD community what matters - with userbase without users is > like masturbating. > > Ppl like me test public

Re: tmpfs

> Who gives a sh*t?! This project, as it happens. > Ppl supporting OpenBSD community what matters - with userbase without users > is > like masturbating. What is this obsession with masturbating? Linus has it too. At least you get credit for not mentioning monkeys. > Ppl like me test public

Re: tmpfs

Who gives a sh*t?! Ppl supporting OpenBSD community what matters - with userbase without users is like masturbating. Ppl like me test public diffs on live equipment, donate money and buy CDs so Theo can continue to milk this project so he can bike in Canadian woods. As we speak it in Russia:

Re: tmpfs

Guess which one of you and theo have it's name all over the CVS tree ? 2016-07-31 16:37 GMT+02:00 mxb : > While looking at the mirror, read your last email once again. > > >> On 30 juli 2016, at 19:58, Theo de Raadt wrote: >> >> Yeah, you sure are

Re: tmpfs

While looking at the mirror, read your last email once again. > On 30 juli 2016, at 19:58, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > Yeah, you sure are the cool dude. > > Despite the existance of people like you, OpenBSD has been > progressing as working code for 20 years. > > > And

Re: tmpfs

Yeah, you sure are the cool dude. Despite the existance of people like you, OpenBSD has been progressing as working code for 20 years. And what have you added. Just words. Mean ones about things you later say you don't are about. Just layers of spite from you when it is pointed out your

Re: tmpfs

I don't appreciate the private reply. Adding misc back in. > On 30 juli 2016, at 16:29, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > Just shut up.

Re: tmpfs

3:04, Theo de Raadt <dera...@openbsd.org> wrote: > > I don't appreciate the private reply. > > Adding misc back in. > >> 1. I don't use tmpfs. So for me - I don' care that much. > > If you don't care, then don't talk about it. > > In particular, don't send

Re: tmpfs

I don't appreciate the private reply. Adding misc back in. > 1. I don't use tmpfs. So for me - I don' care that much. If you don't care, then don't talk about it. In particular, don't send a message which criticizes the approaches we take to make OpenBSD more robust. Don't act butt-h

Re: tmpfs

> Are there any "gatekeepers" around the code? What is a gatekeeper? Is it a maintainer? If you want this code, step up. > I thought "tech" was the best place to release > questionable code? What kind of release are you talking about? We are closer to using "cvs rm" as a release mechanism.

Re: tmpfs

Are there any “gatekeepers” around the code? I thought “tech” was the best place to release questionable code? //mxb > On 29 juli 2016, at 18:14, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > Because the code quality is crap.

Re: tmpfs

> I remember a bit of fanfare when tmpfs was enabled in OpenBSD - > http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article=20131217081921 and at the > time switched from using mfs to tmpfs. At the time it appeared that > tmpfs solved some mfs issues. It seems we've come full circle and > noticed d

tmpfs

I remember a bit of fanfare when tmpfs was enabled in OpenBSD - http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article=20131217081921 and at the time switched from using mfs to tmpfs. At the time it appeared that tmpfs solved some mfs issues. It seems we've come full circle and noticed during a perusal of the cvs

Re: mfs vs tmpfs: advantages and disadvantages

And what about performance? Is tmpfs or mfs faster? Is one or another more resource hungry? -- Furthermore, I consider that systemd must be destroyed Latin oratorical phrase

Re: mfs vs tmpfs: advantages and disadvantages

On Tue, 03 May 2016 02:53:36 -0600 Theo de Raadt <dera...@cvs.openbsd.org> wrote: > mfs is reliable. > tmpfs has bugs, and as a result of those bugs, it has fewer and fewer > users. > Or, maybe there are fewer problem reports because fewer people use > it, because those wh

Re: mfs vs tmpfs: advantages and disadvantages

haven't had any issues with tmpfs yet, I feel the need to be somewhat proactive. Whilst not exactly Michelangelo's finest work of art, it's probably better than the original set of patches I submitted. I use the following in /etc/fstab: swap /var/log tmpfs.sh rw,nodev,noexec,nosuid,-s=64M,-P=/M/var

Re: mfs vs tmpfs: advantages and disadvantages

On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:08:06PM +1000, bytevolc...@safe-mail.net wrote: > With tmpfs being in the tree for the last 2+ years (since OpenBSD 5.5), > I would like to ask, besides the "-P" option in mount_mfs, what is the > advantage of using mfs over tmpfs? tmpfs on Bitrig doe

Re: mfs vs tmpfs: advantages and disadvantages

> With tmpfs being in the tree for the last 2+ years (since OpenBSD 5.5), > I would like to ask, besides the "-P" option in mount_mfs, what is the > advantage of using mfs over tmpfs? mfs is reliable. > It seems tmpfs has the following advantages: > > - Can grow o

mfs vs tmpfs: advantages and disadvantages

Hello, With tmpfs being in the tree for the last 2+ years (since OpenBSD 5.5), I would like to ask, besides the "-P" option in mount_mfs, what is the advantage of using mfs over tmpfs? It seems tmpfs has the following advantages: - Can grow or shrink; shrinks when files are eras

Re: tmpfs weirdness

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 05:11:35PM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: Also, it should be noted tmpfs allocates the entire amount of memory available by default. Nope. Your wording is incorrect. mfs *reserves* memory. tmpfs doesn't. If you want to put limits on it, you can use parameters to mount

Re: tmpfs weirdness

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014, at 11:24 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote: there are some interesting patches in bitrig that you could try to apply in the openbsd tree, recompile your kernel and see if any of them help. https://github.com/bitrig/bitrig/commit/c2ce175 Fix integer overflows handling objects

Re: tmpfs weirdness

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Marc Espie es...@nerim.net wrote: On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 05:11:35PM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: Also, it should be noted tmpfs allocates the entire amount of memory available by default. Nope. Your wording is incorrect. mfs *reserves* memory. tmpfs

Re: tmpfs weirdness

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:30:51AM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On Tue, Apr 22, 2014, at 11:24 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote: there are some interesting patches in bitrig that you could try to apply in the openbsd tree, recompile your kernel and see if any of them help.

Re: tmpfs weirdness

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014, at 12:26 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: With a tmpfs mounted on /tmp: $ cd /tmp $ dd if=/dev/zero of=0 bs=1M ; sync ; sleep 5 ; rm 0 results in dmesg getting spammed with: uao_flush: strange, got an out of range flush (fixed) Forgot to mention, this is on amd64

tmpfs weirdness

With a tmpfs mounted on /tmp: $ cd /tmp $ dd if=/dev/zero of=0 bs=1M ; sync ; sleep 5 ; rm 0 results in dmesg getting spammed with: uao_flush: strange, got an out of range flush (fixed) If the tmpfs is large enough (larger than physical RAM, maybe?) another error happens (I don't have it handy

Panic using tmpfs on current

applications, it would be better to have a separate user (let's say temp1). I added, on /etc/rc.local mount_tmpfs -u temp1 -g temp1 -s 8G tmpfs /home/temp1 to recreate the home directory of the user at every startup. I could have done it via fstab, I know. The machine has 16G of ram installed. I

panic on using tmpfs

I have got kernel panic and message below on running fsstress over tmpfs. kernel diagnostic assertion dvp != vp failed: file ../../../../tmpfs/tmpfs_vnops.c, line 768 Panic can be easily reproduced by following steps: - pkg_add fsstress - mkdir /root/tmpfs - mount_tmpfs tmpfs /root/tmpfs

Man page for tmpfs

I saw the commit on Undeadly.org for the new tmpfs. Very nice! I was looking to find the man page to test it or just try it for fun, but I couldn't find one yet. http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=tmpfsapropos=0sektion=0manpath=OpenBSD+Currentarch=i386format=html Am I missing

Re: Man page for tmpfs

On 12/17/13 12:28, Daniel Ouellet wrote: I saw the commit on Undeadly.org for the new tmpfs. Very nice! I was looking to find the man page to test it or just try it for fun, but I couldn't find one yet. http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=tmpfsapropos=0sektion=0manpath=OpenBSD

Re: Man page for tmpfs

man mount_tmpfs Only in the recent snapshots. If not then CVS, cd /usr/src/sbin/mount_tmpfs for source / man page Why didn't I think of mount_tmpfs??? Thank you!