On 02/09/2015 05:35 AM, jdd wrote:
reboot, same. No X. most operation gives "no space left on device". after several reboots without enhancement, I went to /tmp, did rm -R *... and all ice ok now.
One reason to put /tmp of a separate partition/fs. The value of this from a number of aspects has been discussed many times in many forums dating back to long before Linux existed, probably before SUN existed. While there are advantages to having a single, global BtrFS that encompasses everything, it only applies if you can consolidate many aspects of the FS, ultimately make use of some functions that are possibly not available yet. I make use of ReiserFS and I like the idea of a well balanced B-Tree FS that avoids issues like i-node consumption. I like LVM & Reiser because I no longer have the issues I had back in, for example, the SCO UNIX days of trying to figure out the best allocation of disk space. Now I can grow and shrink and even overflow onto another spindle. But I don't think the ext4FS counts simply because I still have to, at mkfs time, decide on the balance between data and i-nodes just like I did in the days of Ken's V7 and the V7FS. I'm not saying tht ext4FS is a bad file system; it has features that ReiserFS lacks and if those are what you need then go that route. But I don't and I' happy with ReiserFS. I'd love to be happy with BtrFS. I have it working for me for the RootFS, but I have /home and /var and /tmp and /srv separate. For security reasons I also have /tmp mounted nosuid,noexec. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org