On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 03:47:47PM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote: > > - need to put info somewhere that doesn't have to be kept between > > boots? /var/run > > - same but need it before /var is mounted? /run > > - same but need it even when / is read-only ? /run, setup by the > > sysadmin to be on a tmpfs > So what do I do when I'm writing an application or script that likes to > use a ram-based fs if any is available? Test for /dev/shm first, then > see if we're lucky enough to be on a system that has /run on tmpfs, > otherwise bug the admin to create a separate tmpfs? It's messy, and > requires each application to do these tests in order to take advantage > of an already mounted tmpfs. In Debian, the answer is: none of the above. You should not be second-guessing the admin's storage decisions. For that matter, we shouldn't be shipping code that's so badly written that it doesn't work right with non-memory-based filesystems. You've heard of disk buffers, right? The FHS is quite right to ignore filesystem tuning issues. > Again, your proposal is fine, but I still think offering a generic ram-based > fs is more elegant. It is not elegant, it's second-guessing the admin. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpGaYKTnDjOz.pgp
Description: PGP signature