Re: how to increase space for tmpfs /tmp
On 20120402_043958, Tom H wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Paul E Condon <pecondon@mesanetworks.net> wrote:
> > On 20120401_130449, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >> On Sb, 31 mar 12, 11:08:39, Paul E Condon wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Having a tmpfs filesystem for "/tmp" doesn't mean that a dedicated
> >>>> partition is required for "/tmp".
> >>>
> >>> What you say doesn't work for me, but something else does.
> >>
> >> Show us (what doesn't work) :)
> >
> > My statement was made in response to a statement by another person
> > whose name you have snipped out. It is just as well that you did this
> > snipping, because, now I regret writing precisely that in response to
> > that remark.
> >
> > What *does* work for me is a separate partition for /tmp, which is
> > something that I never had to have before. Having to set up such as
> > part of a dist-upgrade, or full-upgrade, or re-install breaks the 'it
> > just works' paradigm. I think it was not really working in squeeze as
> > well, but until quite recently, I was unaware of the meaning of some
> > error messages and unable to design and execute diagnostic to tests, or
> > to formulate questions that would evoke helpful explanations. (You do
> > realize by now that I do have communication problems, I hope.)
>
> I gave up on this thread when I saw the cryptic and useless "What you
> say doesn't work for me, but something else does" but now that you've
> explained what you think works, I have to add that you've made very
> little sense throughout this thread and that your problem cannot have
> been the migration of "/tmp" to tmpfs.
>
> If your server could run in the past with "/tmp" as a directory on
> "/", it cannot be that setting "RAMTMP=no" in "/etc/default/rcS"
> wouldn't solve whatever (hopefully non-philosophical) problem you have
> with "/tmp" as a tmpfs mount. You must have a new or upgraded
> application that's using "/tmp" differently, or are using the system
> differently.
Regret.
Peace.
--
Paul E Condon
pecondon@mesanetworks.net
Reply to: