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

Re: /run vs /var/run (was: Please test new sysvinit)

On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 10:13:35PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:

> [Steve Langasek]
> > Given the reality of /lib, is there any need for a separate /usr/lib?

> > The principle is the same: /lib is used only for the minimal system
> > required for booting, and everything else should go in /usr/lib.
> > /run should be used only for junk that needs to be stored early in
> > the boot sequence, and everything else should go in /var/run.

> /var/run is *tiny*.  In fact on my system it's close to 4 orders of
> magnitude smaller than /usr/lib.  I know why /usr isn't assumed to be
> on the root filesystem, and it's not at all related to why a /run ramfs
> that has to exist anyway might be inappropriate for /var/run.

On the contrary; on some of my systems, I have at least /var/run/samba and
/var/run/screen, which aren't guaranteed to stay small at all.  On one
particular samba fileserver I checked, /var/run is less than two orders of
magnitude smaller than /usr/lib.  :)

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: