| |||||||||||||
Quotas for tmpfsQuotas for tmpfsPosted Nov 11, 2011 16:50 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: Quotas for tmpfs by RogerOdle Parent article: Quotas for tmpfs
What may be preferable is to group ordinary users together as far as the tmp file system is concerned.You mean, group quotas, which have existed for as long as user quotas?
(Log in to post comments)
Quotas for tmpfs Posted Nov 12, 2011 20:52 UTC (Sat) by Tobu (subscriber, #24111) [Link] Or ballooning, like ext's policy of keeping the last 5% available for only root.
Quotas for tmpfs Posted Nov 13, 2011 1:26 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] What's appropriate for limiting tmpfs depends entirely on the specific problems you're trying to avoid, which we haven't established.The classic Unix system which is used by multiple persons, each with a unique userid, are very rare now. On a system like that, a per-userid quota would make sense, though, to prevent a malicious user from denying service to others. But multiuser systems today typically have multiple persons acting through the same userid (which owns a server process). On those, per-userid quota isn't much use. Besides malicious attack, another great use of tmpfs space limitation is to limit the risk of an inadvertent runaway process. A per-process resource limit is a sensible way to do that. Reserving space for root is a particularly ham-handed way protect system integrity, since root isn't all that special. It often uses space on behalf of unprivileged unimportant users, for one thing. And other userids are often critical to the system (there's no point in all those system management things running if the web server can't, after all). There already is a great facility for protecting a process from another process' indiscriminate use of tmpfs space: make a tmpfs filesystem just for him. Any serious program ought either to respect the TMPDIR environment variable or provide some other means of directing the location of temporary files.
|
|||||||||||||