WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: problem mounting tmpfs  (Read 10354 times)

Offline tinypoodle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3857
Re: problem mounting tmpfs
« Reply #15 on: January 07, 2011, 12:16:49 PM »
Ok, to find out more, you could first read kernel docs and then google for the following filesystems involved: "initramfs" "rootfs" "tmpfs" (ramfs is related but not used in TC).

Booting with 'syslog' and then examine /var/log/messages could give you some insight about what is happening.

Resources are freed after switch_root has been executed.

IIRC - it is a long time - when booting from initial ramdisks, they used to end up being mounted on some mountpoint on the root fs by default or at least in some cases.
"Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster." Niklaus Wirth - A Plea for Lean Software (1995)

Offline wysiwyg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 266
Re: problem mounting tmpfs
« Reply #16 on: January 07, 2011, 01:10:16 PM »
Resources are freed after switch_root has been executed.


So would it be ok to umount the rootfs since it's no longer being used?  Currently both TC and my distro (since I'm cloning parts of TC) both have two root mounts / (one rootfs and one tmpfs).  Since I sized my tmpfs partition way down from 90%, I can see that the / tmpfs is the one that actually should be used as it reports the correct size while the / rootfs still shows the 90%.

Offline tinypoodle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3857
Re: problem mounting tmpfs
« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2011, 01:54:30 PM »
i would bet you would never be able to umount rootfs.
"Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster." Niklaus Wirth - A Plea for Lean Software (1995)

Offline wysiwyg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 266
Re: problem mounting tmpfs
« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2011, 10:55:13 AM »
i would bet you would never be able to umount rootfs.

I bet you're right.  There's no UUID or anything specific about that mount that can be targeted for umount is there?  Obviously, a "umount /" wouldn't work... :)