From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-user+bounces-138712-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1SZ7Md-0003V7-5H
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 28 May 2012 21:20:31 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3FAABE0938;
Mon, 28 May 2012 21:20:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E9BBE0943
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 28 May 2012 21:19:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bkcjk13 with SMTP id jk13so3020631bkc.40
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 28 May 2012 14:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:content-type;
bh=L4yg7BHTbLiI/WNvGCwgQpMpeHUMkhR3Ov6P8QrmzKY=;
b=INTI9SRhgCx4uFnNxChLB2ttJf5Gchi7aH++yV/3lv87J4oVSfubbP7PPDEuIp7txT
NWxsROOPSfKHoD11kGYAqGjtEWIgA3NZM53BHPHcdFxdnTZ8mMo9hloOFAp0PkfdCc6v
Um7Pp9zQ1giss9b+OQCpK8c++E8BY7W9YqE4OE5L5Ibt8SDZgQsJoy6NTcVuuRKLui0g
+Y4pCnraDmfvKwd6USOK+Q67s/1DPw/ZcVW7ivvKpX1JCNVWvlPfXpjEMbOyjMCZu+pB
cxG7ZsepFFU9HxQGZOESXwyYiAhqKv5tGd1N0MsoKwEXCaGCTt3I9CmmTANo2CaYBC0y
5mvw==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.153.6 with SMTP id i6mr4170018bkw.114.1338239940180; Mon,
28 May 2012 14:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.42.207 with HTTP; Mon, 28 May 2012 14:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FC3D10B.8020408@gmail.com>
References: <4FC1332A.3040703@gmail.com>
<4FC1368E.7080005@gmail.com>
<4FC13850.2020802@gmail.com>
<20120526214001.0668531f@digimed.co.uk>
<4FC15692.9070507@gmail.com>
<20120526233444.670274c8@digimed.co.uk>
<4FC16492.5020603@gmail.com>
<20120527012105.284de0e6@khamul.example.com>
<4FC17238.4020605@gmail.com>
<CAA2qdGVxzeWkxu2fWQ2_kTACd5reUovUxV_JfQ+dByZy-+o4nQ@mail.gmail.com>
<4FC19A24.2000103@gmail.com>
<CAOTuDKq0OMnopmoFeXrgN8PyTTDx8pRATOjzVBH47qr7eg3Szw@mail.gmail.com>
<CADPrc81_VXLWWnw5LecBfUw2=pHG57=5QeN6PZpR8_SpE3U3Fw@mail.gmail.com>
<4FC1D24A.8050409@gmail.com>
<20120527092422.6b3767e8@digimed.co.uk>
<4FC3C48B.5030408@gmail.com>
<CA+czFiDq1=cQP9Kxmhw+3ZN2C7EvCyA6dJnQeL=HzmDK2EOfYw@mail.gmail.com>
<4FC3D10B.8020408@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 17:19:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+czFiCoOZT=4L2_V5GdQitq0NPA8sb4CtV1Y384oqasT=B5Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] How can I control size of /run (tmpfs)?
From: Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: 1f5832cc-23e9-439e-a413-b4a2363b2f12
X-Archives-Hash: 3dd172e9accc7c3c169032ae8e1b5d15
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Jarry <mr.jarry@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28-May-12 20:58, Michael Mol wrote:
>
>>>>> Q2: Can I turn this "/run in tmpfs" feature off?
>>
>>
>> Up front: I don't know. Not my area of expertise, but I also don't
>> think you've given enough information about your system to really
>> answer.
>>
>> 1) Are you using openrc or systemd? (which version?)
>
>
> openrc 0.9.8.4
I'll let someone more familiary with openrc figure out if/how you'd
reconfigure it wrt /run.
>
>
>> 2) Are you using an initramfs? (Generated by what version of what?)
>
>
> no, but I might be forced to use it later when udev >=181 becomes
> stable.
Is your /usr on a separate partition?
[snip]
>> But why would you want to?
>
>
> I do not see any advantage in having /run on tmpfs.
>
>> will be automatically moved to your swap partition if doing so
>> benefits your system.
>
>
> I'm not sure it is true. I have read somewhere that tmfps is
> never moved to swap.
Then you didn't read the link I gave above, which points directly to
the kernel documentation on tmpfs. Here's the link again:
http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/filesystems/tmpfs.txt
> Anyway, I prefer not using swap at all.
I'm *generally* of the same opinion, but I budge here and there. I try
to have enough RAM in my various systems that I can build chromium and
libreoffice without things getting shoved to swap. (Heh. There's a
losing battle, especially when I parallelize stuff so much. And have
you seen the RAM consumed by ld in chromium's final link stages?)
> And I have better use for physical memory than holding some
> more-or-less statical data...
This is *exactly* what swap is for.
http://kerneltrap.org/node/3000
If you have, e.g. five terabytes of swap space and five terabytes of
RAM, and you set vm.swappiness to 0, your swap space will never get
touched. (Unless you somehow manage to consume all your RAM.)
In such a scenario, it'd be like not having any swap at all.
With that in mind, whether or not you have any swap, your only
sacrifice is how much space on a block device you sacrifice for a swap
partition. With the exception of some virtual machines, none of my
systems have drives smaller than 160GB. Discount laptops and mobile
devices, and none of my systems have drives smaller than 500GB. One
can easily throw 1GB of disk at swap (which then never gets used) and
not notice it in filesystem volume; I have running ext* filesystems
with more intrinsic overhead than that.
[snip]
--
:wq