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

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



Hi,

On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 11:01:20AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:

> 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.  

Completely true. That's also why I never said /mem is *required* to be
memory-based, only likely to be so.

Code that can only work if /mem is indeed in RAM instead of just
mmap'able and writable is indeed very much broken, and I can't even
imagine right now how to do it on purpose ;-)

> > 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.

On the contrary, if applications categorize their data according to
likely persistance and volatility, it allows the admin to make better
storage decisions.

Cheers,


Emile.

-- 
E-Advies - Emile van Bergen           emile@e-advies.nl      
tel. +31 (0)70 3906153           http://www.e-advies.nl    

Attachment: pgpMzOlBT0AhV.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: