Timeline for Why Mac OS X requires any amount of free disk space?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 30, 2014 at 6:55 | comment | added | naught101 | For reference, a fixed-sized swap partition is the default set-up on most linux installs. It isn't really problematic, because hard-drive space is so cheap now. Usually, a swap partition of around the same size as the RAM is created. Overflow isn't really a problem, because the system tries to not use swap at all, and when it does, it starts more aggressively trying to recover RAM from running processes. | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 0:20 | vote | accept | cregox | ||
| Nov 20, 2012 at 0:20 | comment | added | cregox | @bmike tell you what. I'll go with this answer because it did cover basically all of what I asked, assuming that's how it works. And I would say OS can't stop working if I try to be excessive on programs - it should prevent me from doing more than the hardware can. | |
| Nov 19, 2012 at 16:15 | vote | accept | cregox | ||
| Nov 19, 2012 at 16:15 | |||||
| Nov 19, 2012 at 16:01 | comment | added | bmike♦ | @cawas - I would say the OS is working if it boots and you get to run your choice of software on it. Can you point to a more specific reason why "the OS bugging out" is really the OS's fault and not excessive user program demands being placed on a system with finite resources? I think that without a better definition of what "the OS" is - everyone can have widely divergent opinions on what is good when tradeoffs need to be made in code and in system design. | |
| Nov 19, 2012 at 0:50 | comment | added | cregox | So you're saying, on average, overflow from RAM is the main issue which causes OS bugs when the disk gets full? Now I wonder if Android or iOS ever have such issues, and if I should update my question to address this... | |
| Nov 18, 2012 at 23:09 | comment | added | Gordon Davisson | I was just using partitioning to illustrate the more fundamental point that needs change unpredictably, and any other fixed-usage scheme will have at least roughly similar problems. | |
| Nov 18, 2012 at 23:06 | comment | added | cregox | You're missing my point. I also advocate to use only 1 partition. I'm not saying "partitioning is the solution, why they don't do it". I'm just saying "how can't they come up with any kind of solution, even if using partitions, to keep the OS working without worrying about free disk space". Windows and Ubuntu sure bug out with zero space. I thought OSX didn't, but now I'm not so sure - not only because of the warning. | |
| Nov 18, 2012 at 22:59 | comment | added | Gordon Davisson | Put it another way: the ultimate reason to not put a limit like this is flexibility. Whenever I've partitioned a computer, I always later find I've chosen the partition sizes poorly: I either need more space on the system partition when there's lots left in the user data partition or vice versa. Not having a fixed dividing line means I can always use all of the available space for whatever it happens to be needed for. | |
| Nov 18, 2012 at 22:56 | comment | added | Gordon Davisson | How? I mean, there are some things it can do, like quitting programs that don't seem to be in active use and thus freeing up the resources they're using, but A) there's a limit to how much can be done this way and B) if there is more space available why should the OS go into panic diet mode just because it's hitting some arbitrary limit? | |
| Nov 18, 2012 at 21:31 | comment | added | cregox | Makes a lot of sense... Except for the part where the OS bugs out if you reach zero free space. The OS should protect itself to never bug out, some how. Shouldn't it? | |
| Nov 18, 2012 at 21:20 | history | answered | Gordon Davisson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |