On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 14:58 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 04/06/2012 01:47 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: > > On 04/06/2012 11:14 AM, Vratislav Podzimek wrote: > >> On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 20:58 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >>> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 08:32:56PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > >>>> * #834 F18 Feature: /tmp on tmpfs - > >>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/tmp-on-tmpfs (mitr, 17:40:06) > >>>> * AGREED: tmp-on-tmpfs is accepted (+5 -3) (mitr, 18:12:52) > >>> > >>> Actually I think this is a good feature, but ... > >>> > >>> The feature page is wrong about "The user experience should barely > >>> change. This is mostly a low-level change that has little visibility > >>> to the user." > >>> > >>> tmpfs is different in a number of important ways: > >>> > >>> - it's very limited in space compared to a real disk > >> This is the reason why I refused having /tmp as tmpfs (or even as a > >> separate partition) few months ago. Has anybody tried to use e.g. > >> Brasero with it? Well, if you are burning a DVD, Brasero needs about 4 > >> GB on /tmp -- not enough space in RAM or wasting a lot of disk space on > >> having such big /tmp partition that is most of the time unused. Yes, you > >> can tell Brasero to use some other space, but it obviously relies on > >> volatility of the /tmp and doesn't clean after itself. I'm quite sure > >> this is not only the case of Brasero. > >> > > > > We should file bugs on those issues and add them to some tracker bug, > > which will be created for tmpfs related issues. > That a lost fight, because one of /tmp's primary purposes is to > temporarily store almost arbitrarily huge amounts of data, instead of > storing them in memory. This is the key overlooked fact. -- Vratislav Podzimek -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
