Re: Idea: mount /tmp to tmpfs depending on free space and RAM
2012/6/13 Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
>> Why do people repeat that tmpfs is easy to resize? Yes, you need about 3
>> commands to resize tmpfs, but you need 0 (zero!) commands to resize /tmp on
>> disk, because it's large by default and you don't need to resize it. It's
>> easier to NOT resize /tmp on disk then resize /tmp on tmpfs, isn't it? ;)
> Obviously, you only think of /tmp as mounted on /.
It was about /tmp on disk in general, but as long as default is to have
everything on a root partition - it does not matter where exactly it is.
For more complex configurations I suggested several "Alternatives"
(e.g. mount-bind to /home/tmp), each of them is usually better than tmpfs,
and don't need tmpfs-like resizes.
> This is often seen as not a good move to have a user-writable directory on
> the system partition(s), since this provides for easy DOS
DoS like what? /tmp on disk have a 5% safety limit available for system,
user can "DoS" only his own processes, and he can do that anyway. But
/tmp on tmpfs is even worse move, since it does not have 5% safety.
> (even involuntary; I know of people daily working with 30GB files, and
> this easily fills the / partition).
Is there anything better for them than /tmp on disk? If it's a desktop with
single disk I would suggested them a single root partition (with /tmp on it).
If it's a server with small root but large /home on RAIDs then I would
mount-bind /tmp to /home/tmp...