[SM-Discuss] tmpfs
Sergey A. Lipnevich
sergeyli at pisem.net
Thu Jul 25 09:51:36 EDT 2002
I still think tempfs is a very elegant solution to many
problems (disk clean-up, /tmp using my otherwise unused
most of the time swap partition, performance still
there), but that's not the point. Why are we discussing
what to change when there's a whole slew of sorcery
functions to implement to be feature-complete for 1.0?
--Sergey.
Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ <cerise at littlegreenmen.armory.com>:
> Julian v. Bock said:
>
> > I like it because my fs doesn't get filled with the
remains of failed
> > compiles. After a reboot everything is gone, and if
I want to
> > clean up manually all I have to do is the following:
> >
> > cd /usr/src
> > umount *
> > rmdir *
> >
> > This leaves the kernel dir / link intact.
>
> I can think of a couple of work arounds. You
could chroot into a
> directory and install things to the appropriate
places. You could then
> relink things accordingly.
> You could create a new directory as you would with
tempfs and
> do all sorcery related work within it. You could
then delete leftovers
> accordingly.
> You could have a temporary file mounted as a
loopback and do all
> work in there.
> The important part here is that Sorcery as a good
packaging system
> should clean up after itself. Tempfs is a simple
idea thrown at a
> problem. I believe that the benchmarks have bourne
out that using the
> native filesystem may be a better idea.
> I don't believe that having Sorcery clean up after
itself and
> having Sorcery use the native filesystem are mutually
exclusive.
>
> -Phil/CERisE
More information about the SM-Discuss
mailing list