Paul de Weerd <weerd@weirdnet.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 01:29:47PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> | > Sadly, no :-(
> | >
> | > But I should be able to accomplish what I need using rc.firsttime and
> | > a tiny bit of hackery.
> |
> | Sadly, no :-(
> |
> | What I was aiming for was to have the newly installed machines come
> | up with a 2GB MFS /tmp and a ~20GB /var/tmp. But MFS /tmp really
> | needs help in the system boot scripts.
>
> Why? I've been running with MFS /tmp for *years* on several machines.
>
> This indeed required some changes when /var/tmp was changed into a
> symlink to /tmp, but that was really no issue at all.
>
> There's very little difference between a /tmp on disk and a /tmp in
> RAM (through mfs): both get mounted during boot at the same time.
>
> [weerd@pom] $ grep /tmp /etc/fstab
> swap /tmp mfs rw,nodev,noatime,async,nosuid,-s=8388608
> [weerd@pom] $ df -h /tmp
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
> mfs:12547 3.9G 227M 3.5G 6% /tmp
>
> | The critical part for us is that /var/tmp not overwhelm /var, and
> | we can get that with the current scheme by sizing /tmp accordingly.
>
> Having /var/tmp not overwhelm /var is accomplished by having /var/tmp
> symlink to /tmp (assuming /var and /tmp are on separate filesystems).
> If you need more room in /var/tmp then you want to assign to your MFS
> /tmp, then you need a different solution - but that's probably
> something that can also be solved in a different way (don't use
> /var/tmp for temporary storage, but another (dedicated) location for
> whatever needs to write so much there).
What hasn't been mentioned is why /var/tmp was made into a symbolic
link to /tmp.
Is your /var/tmp a seperate filesystem?
Can I have a temporary account to demonstrate the consequences of
filling /var?
No comments:
Post a Comment