Re: /var tmpfs ?
Matus, Sebastian ....
... understood :D
Well, ok, these are some good arguments.
I guess with modern large SSDs the whole thing became obsolete now, but i'm still on old hardware.
Actually, i've got a more basic question: If i configure large sizes, but are mostly unused - are these memory shares still no more available for normal RAM operations ?
ok, now i'm going to have /tmp, /var/cache and /var/log, and $HOME/.cache as tmpfs, as it works fine so far.
Then which option is better: One tmpfs for each (this is what i'm doing) or create one big tmpfs and create folders and symlinks ?
The first option needs safety size margin for every FS; while the latter could probably go with less in total ?
For example, i would have
/tmp ...... 3 G (large beause is used for many things, like d/l and extracting archives, to not bother the system HD)
$HOME/.cache ....... 2 G (mainly because googleearth cache, possibly zillions of aerial tiles. Recently turned out Gimp / GEGL are also doing large things.)
/var/cache .... 50 M (with my installation setup, seems to be enough, when /var/cache/apt is on HD)
/var/log ........ 50 M (more than enough if not persistent)
Sum: About 5G.
But with only one big tmpfs and symlinks, i could probably go with just 3G total; because it's unlikely that i'll use all the space eaters a time; and if so, could empty caches anyway.
The disadvantage would be, needs to create folders and symlinks, with failsafe checks, in a boot script like rc.local, but then again, this seems to be rather trivial.
But this setup might get tricky, if something goes wrong (for example, booting into single mode).
Hmm, maybe i already answered my onw question here ... i'll symlink only $HOME/.cache, to (or is it: from?) /tmp/cache-user or so. Seems to be a safe bet ?