>> So there are two problems:
   >>  1. tmpfs is not reporting free space sanely for df
   >>  2. tmpfs is apparently not allowing itself to compete with file  
   >> cache
   >>     for free-memory resources.
   >
   > yes, and my suggestted patch (mandate -s) solves both of them.
   
   I totally support yamt's patch ... mandating -s is a reasonable  
   solution.


how does one have a default /tmp tmpfs for a fresh install?

i talked to some folks familiar with linux tmpfs.  unless a
size is specified, it uses half of ram.  i guess in this case
it's like passing -s but is dynamically calculated.


(linux tmpfs also uses virtually no extra ram due to using
other kernel cache objects (ie, vnode/inode/directory) rather
than keeping track of them with private structure.  i wonder
if those ideas could be adapted for our tmpfs?)


.mrg.