Re: /run vs /var/run
On Monday 19 December 2005 23:04, Gabor Gombas <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 01:49:37AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > tmpfs stores run ressources in vm more efficiently (since they are
> > otherwise in th buffercache and the filesystem).
> Quite the contrary. tmpfs needs vm space even if nobody needs the data
> (thus, it could be evicted from the page cache if it were on a
> disk-backed fs).
Whether it's on ext3 or tmpfs the end result is that it's in RAM if it's being
used and on disk if it hasn't been used for a while. The only difference is
whether "on disk" means a swap partition or an ext3 file system.
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 10:47, Gabor Gombas <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 07:40:24PM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > Yes, we are talking about a few pages in swap space at most.
> It's 55 pages (220k) on this machine (368k on ext3). And it's a simple
> desktop with not much running state.
The iPaQ machines I bought a few years ago have 64M of RAM. Every desktop
machine produced in the last 6 years has significantly more than 64M.
Currently I have some Pentium machines with 64M of RAM that I can't give away
(they are so small that no-one wants them for free).
368K is an issue on a machine with 8M of RAM, it's an annoyance if you have
16M, beyond about 32M it stops being a problem.
Incidentally if 368K of memory is a problem for you then you should probably
stop using Ext3. Ext2 uses less RAM (and that's RAM for non-pagable data).
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page