From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D00C1382C5 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 23:18:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6FCA8E0BBA; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 23:18:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from auth-3.ukservers.net (auth-3.ukservers.net [217.10.138.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0152AE0AEC for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 23:18:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.137] (host86-173-156-145.range86-173.btcentralplus.com [86.173.156.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by auth-3.ukservers.net (Postfix smtp) with ESMTPSA id EDE355403CF for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 23:18:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] /var/tmp on tmpfs To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: From: Wol's lists Message-ID: <63b383d1-e75d-097a-593a-6b955b482676@youngman.org.uk> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 23:18:19 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 16cf73a6-8fbc-4ca4-8f5b-568d2f7cc8db X-Archives-Hash: 53d657d5efdf336398b22810caef6636 On 08/02/18 20:56, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 02/08/2018 10:11 AM, gevisz wrote: >> And I am going to set the whole /var/tmp on tpmfs instead of just >> /var/tmp/portage >> >> Is it ok? > > I don't know about the context of emerging, but I do know about the > context of /var/tmp being volatile. > > More specifically, /var/tmp is traditionally supposed to be non-volatile > (across reboots). > > Comparatively the contents of /tmp can be volatile (across reboots). > > I would advise against mounting /var/tmp on tmpfs. > EMPHATICALLY YES. /tmp is defined as being volatile - stuff can disappear at any time. /var/tmp is defined as the place where programs store stuff like crash recovery files. Mounting it tmpfs is going to screw up any programs that reply on that *defined* behaviour to recover after a crash. Mounting /var/tmp/portage as tmpfs is perfectly fine as far as I know - I do it myself. Cheers, Wol