On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] announced authoritatively:
> On Friday 25 November 2005 22:04, Nix wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Rob Landley moaned:
>> > On Friday 25 November 2005 13:33, Nix wrote:
>
>> > Actually, I consider the fact the OOM killer doesn't delete files out of
>> > tmpfs
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:18:43PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> Using /tmp for anything has been kind of discouraged for a while, because
> throwing any insufficiently randomized filename in there is a security hole
> waiting to happen.
Which case are you worried about here? SFAIK all the
filesys
On Friday 25 November 2005 22:04, Nix wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Rob Landley moaned:
> > On Friday 25 November 2005 13:33, Nix wrote:
> > Actually, I consider the fact the OOM killer doesn't delete files out of
> > tmpfs mounts to be a potential disadvantage in this context.
Not quite understo
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Rob Landley moaned:
> On Friday 25 November 2005 13:33, Nix wrote:
>> Maybe this is a stupid question, but... why do *any* systems other than
>> extremely memory-constrained ones not mount tmpfs on /tmp? It seems to
>> me to have numerous advantages and no disadvantages.
>
> A
On Friday 25 November 2005 13:33, Nix wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Rob Landley uttered the following:
> > A) mlock would be a bad thing. Not only is it a trivial DOS waiting to
> > happen but I like the UML physmem being swapped out under memory
> > pressure. I just don't want uselessly writing
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Rob Landley uttered the following:
> A) mlock would be a bad thing. Not only is it a trivial DOS waiting to
> happen
> but I like the UML physmem being swapped out under memory pressure. I just
> don't want uselessly writing it to disk over and over in the absence of any
On Friday 25 November 2005 09:03, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:56:49PM +, Nix wrote:
> > You could certainly do just that with POSIX shm :)
>
> Another option is to mlock the memory, which should
> prevent paging, but requires root. I have a patch which
> does this using
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Chris Lightfoot murmured woefully:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:56:49PM +, Nix wrote:
>> You could certainly do just that with POSIX shm :)
>
> Another option is to mlock the memory, which should
> prevent paging, but requires root. I have a patch which
> does this using a
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:56:49PM +, Nix wrote:
> You could certainly do just that with POSIX shm :)
Another option is to mlock the memory, which should
prevent paging, but requires root. I have a patch which
does this using a helper binary, if people would like it.
--
``As usual the Libera
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Rob Landley uttered the following:
> There is a tmpfs mount, it's /dev/shm. And apparently, even if tmpfs isn't
> exposed as a separate filesystem, system V shared memory will still use it.
s/System V/POSIX/
It's the shm_open()/shm_close()shm_unlink() functions you're looki
On Friday 25 November 2005 04:52, Rob Landley wrote:
> FYI:
>
> The mounts on a Fedora Core 4 system:
...
> The mounts on the x86-64 PLD system I've been borrowing (and on which I do
> not have root access):
...
> The shell servers from sourceforge:
...
> And I reiterate that on my ubuntu laptop /t
FYI:
The mounts on a Fedora Core 4 system:
/dev/hda2 on / type ext3 (rw)
/dev/proc on /proc type proc (rw)
/dev/sys on /sys type sysfs (rw)
/dev/devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620)
/dev/hda1 on /boot type ext3 (rw)
/dev/shm on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw)
/dev/hdb1 on /home type ext3 (
On Friday 25 November 2005 03:55, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:11:01AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > So my question is, could system v shared memory be used in place of the
> > tmpfs mount? (Can it be mapped in the right location and inherited
> > across fork()?)
>
> tmpfs and shm
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:11:01AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> So my question is, could system v shared memory be used in place of the tmpfs
> mount? (Can it be mapped in the right location and inherited across fork()?)
tmpfs and shmfs are two names for the same underlying code. I think the shm
On Thursday 24 November 2005 14:40, Blaisorblade wrote:
> However, I just found out, see shmctl(2), that IPC_RMID implements the
> refcount "garbage collection" algorithm, so apparently it *could* be used.
>
> The question is if we want it, and considering the new features being added
> to shmfs, t
15 matches
Mail list logo
