Re: how to increase space for tmpfs /tmp
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 19:12:27 +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Wed 28 Mar 2012 at 15:12:19 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:50:50 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>
>> > The improvement long term *could* be valuable enough to justify the
>> > pain. The correct way is usually not the easy way.
>>
>> And what (or who) decides what is "correct"?
>
> It's my package so I do. Hopefully, I make the same sensible decisions
> Roger Leigh makes.
Glad the current default it matches your needings. Hope you understand
that's not the case for others.
>> I've just seen another thread at this mailing list where "another" user
>> has been hit by this "correct" default. I don't mean that having "/tmp"
>> mounted as "tmpfs" is not correct but the default is clearly not suited
>> to many of the users as you can see.
>
> For years I've gone with the Debian tmpfs defaults. Me and thousands of
> others. We don't speak up so often as the ones who have problems. The
> machine without swap space is a good point; one of mine is configured
> like that.
I neither tell much about all of the things that work, that's a bit
obvious and I bet 95% of this mailing lists posts neither do. We write
here because something does not work as expected or because we don't know
how to setup something and that's what have happened in this case.
> But defaults are defaults. Files in /etc/default can be altered. Do I
> really want portmap to listen on all interfaces? Do I want CUPS to load
> a driver for a parallel port printer when I do not have one. No? Then I
> change the situation. But if I do not it doesn't lead to disaster.
(...)
You have said the "magic" word: disaster.
Maybe you (or me) don't think it is a disaster to see an application
hanging because it runs "out of space" but there can be users who don't
have the capacity of thinking the same becasue they lack of the expertise
required to understand what's going on with their system. For they it can
be a "disaster".
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: