[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ifupdown writes to /etc... a bug?

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: pgptwGWPkA_Rs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: