Re: ifupdown writes to /etc... a bug?
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:00:31PM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> Good idea, but why copy it over and unmount it at startup instead of
To have the possibility (on small, possibly diskless systems) to consume
memory at boot only, then to move to cheaper storage? In some situations
each byte counts...
> * keep /tmp as it is now;
> * keep /var as it is now;
> * add /mem, which is RAM-based, writable /very/ early, and initialised
> in full from /var/mem at bootup, allowing the admin to define a desired
> initial state;
> * have part of it, eg. /mem/preserved, written back to /var/mem/preserved at
Why would it need to be in memory anyway ? Let's say "writable /very/
early" alone (and use something else than /mem as the name). All we need
is in fact only an early writable /var for a few specific boot-time
This is the kind of problem where something like unionfs would be
welcome. Everything could just be in /var, with some files available
> I think /mem/ is cleaner than /var/mem, because the latter either
> requires /var to be already mounted readonly, which sort of defeats the
> purpose, or a lot of messy and fragile data movements at startup.
Maybe something like /var.early, /var.boot ? This would more adequately
reflect the spirit (at what i think is the spirit) of the whole thing,
and would less "philosophicaly" hurt FHS compliance..
Jeremie Koenig <email@example.com>