[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: /run vs /var/run

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> writes:

> On a vm-based fs, you always use *address space* for data in it, and it is
> linearly coupled to the amount of filesystem used (or even to the full size,
> for extremely dumb filesystems).
> Not that address space shortage is something I'd fear in the machines we
> have today because of a < 5MiB tmpfs, and I am not even talking of a 64-bit
> box.  Someone who has such shortage won't have it any worse because of a
> small tmpfs, and the fix will still be to move to a 64-bit platform.
> So the whole "eats vm-space" argument against /run (or /var/run, /lib/run,
> /.313373/d3b14n.ru135 or whatever it ends up being named) in tmpfs is just
> noise IMHO.

Note though that mips32 only has 512MB address space iirc. But the
tmpfs should be using virtual adress space inside the kernel and there
you have at least 400MB free with nothing else using it. Use 100MB for
/run and 300 for shm and there should still be no problem.


Reply to: