![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hi Hugh, On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Hugh Dickins wrote: > You surprise me, Christoph, I'd expected you to approve of CaT's. look back into your mail store. I said this pretty early. > If tmpfs already defaulted to 50% of ram+swap, then I'd agree > with you. But it has all along been in terms of RAM, so I think > it's better to continue in that way. (We could add options to > allow +swap in too, but I'm not terribly interested.) No, I always thought the 50% RAM was a terrible hack. And IMHO it is one of the biggest usability gaps of tmpfs. > If people really wanted their tmpfs pages to go out to disk, I think > they'd be choosing a more sophisticated filesystem to manage that: > swap is a vital overflow area for tmpfs, not its home. I definitely want them to go there. It is a very sophisticated mechinsm because by adding swap on _any_ storage I can grow my tmpfs instances even temporarily. If you now were able to take advantage of additional swap automatically administration would be a no brainer. Also distributions could add much saner defaults for /dev/shm or even use it for /tmp. Greetings Christoph - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:34 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||