Subject: Re: free space (was /dev) on tmpfs problem
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <email@example.com>
From: Daniel Carosone <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/29/2005 09:41:56
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 02:32:12AM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > So would I, but there were objections from several folks with valued
> > opinions. Are those objections still held?
> but i have no objection against fixing the calculation
> as far as it's better than current.
Ok, I have committed the updated calculation. I did it in two parts,
one to redo the existing result and one to take into account the
additional factors, just because :)
Thanks for your help refining this.
> i still think mandating -s is better.
A hybrid is possible: only if -s is specified, then 'trust' it as you
propose. Or even another mount flag to make -s behave that way. But
even there, I still think you want a different number, as a kind of
minimum-size reservation, with -s as the upper limit still. At least,
that's what I'd want if I was to use it that way.
It all seems a bit over-wrought and unnecessary, and long past the
point of being a useful discussion; I don't mean to prolong it here.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----