On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 02:48:26PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> writes: > > On 2012-05-30 12:08:29 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > >> Le samedi 26 mai 2012 à 23:02 +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez a > >> écrit : > >> > With "tmpfs on /tmp" you are breaking many applications that assume that > >> > they have enough space to write on /tmp like the flash player ( see > >> > Debian bug #666096 ) or cdrecord software ( see #665634 ). > >> Seriously, this is madness. You can’t expect to have “enough” space on > >> *any* filesystem. > > I think that the point is that in general, there is more space on > > the local disk than on some tmpfs. What I mean is that if /tmp is > > on the right partition on the disk, it will have more space than > > any reasonable tmpfs. > Does that make any difference at all? If an application is unable to > handle the out-of-space condition, then it will be unable to handle the > out-of-space condition no matter how big the file system is. Increasing > the file system size is futile. Fix the bug in the application instead. The problem is not whether applications gracefully handle ENOSPC. The problem is whether we as a distribution are causing users to hit ENOSPC when there's no justifiable reason for it. Even if every application on the system handles ENOSPC gracefully, it's *still* a bug if I have 100GB free on my disk and am hitting ENOSPC due to decisions that Debian, and not me, has made regarding filesystem layout. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature