JACK in Puppy2: What to use for tmp directory

Under development: PCMCIA, wireless, etc.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Dougal
Posts: 2502
Joined: Wed 19 Oct 2005, 13:06
Location: Hell more grotesque than any medieval woodcut

JACK in Puppy2: What to use for tmp directory

#1 Post by Dougal »

The developers of JACK advise against using a journalled fs for the tmp directory.

In Puppy1 it wasn't a problem -- the fs was ext2 -- but now we have ext3, so I didn't know whether I should create a /tmp partition and have it mounted on bootup, then compile JACK to use it -- something that'd make it un-portable...

Anyone got any advice? Maybe use my swap partition?
What's the ugliest part of your body?
Some say your nose
Some say your toes
But I think it's your mind

User avatar
Nathan F
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 14:45
Location: Wadsworth, OH (occasionally home)
Contact:

#2 Post by Nathan F »

A possible solution might be to create something like pup001, an ext2 filesystem in a file. The problem is that then you tie up another loop device to mount it, and we don't have too many of those to spare unless we add a new kernel config line to the boot prompt. But the idea has some merit, you could grab a pupfile zipped from dotpups.de to try it out.

I guess I'll have to look into this myself since I've got so many multimedia applications running in Grafpup that use Jack. It was something I hadn't considered until you mentioned it just now.

Nathan
Bring on the locusts ...

User avatar
Nathan F
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 14:45
Location: Wadsworth, OH (occasionally home)
Contact:

#3 Post by Nathan F »

Hmmm, another thought. I wonder if Jack would object to it if the filesystem was a tmpfs? It wouldn't help the performance at all really but maybe it would work.

Code: Select all

mount tmpfs /mnt/tmpfs -t tmpfs
This is sort of like a ramdisk but with dynamic size, and the ability to use both memory and swap. Pretty self regulating in that regard.

Nathan
Bring on the locusts ...

User avatar
Dougal
Posts: 2502
Joined: Wed 19 Oct 2005, 13:06
Location: Hell more grotesque than any medieval woodcut

#4 Post by Dougal »

Nathan F wrote:Hmmm, another thought. I wonder if Jack would object to it if the filesystem was a tmpfs? It wouldn't help the performance at all really but maybe it would work.
They actually advise you to create a tmpfs, I just didn't know if I'll be forced to repartition my HD or maybe find some workaround within pup_save...
What's the ugliest part of your body?
Some say your nose
Some say your toes
But I think it's your mind

User avatar
Nathan F
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 14:45
Location: Wadsworth, OH (occasionally home)
Contact:

#5 Post by Nathan F »

They actually advise you to create a tmpfs, I just didn't know if I'll be forced to repartition my HD or maybe find some workaround within pup_save...
Well, creating a tmpfs will not in any way require you to change the partitions on your hard drive. A tmpfs is just created in available memory and mounted. If that's their recommendation too then I'd give it a try, just modify the mount command accordingly for the directory you need to use.

Nathan
Bring on the locusts ...

Post Reply