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

Re: /run vs /var/run

On Saturday 24 December 2005 11:35, Goswin von Brederlow 
> > Also as for sym-links, there's no reason why /var/run couldn't be used
> > all along.  Imagine we have a system where /var is mounted from an LVM
> > volume (or something else that can't be mounted early on).  So we start
> > with a /var mount-point which has a /var/run mount-point under it and we
> > mount our tmpfs there.  We then use the --bind option of mount to have it
> > also mounted as /etc/run (or whatever).  Then we have daemons started etc
> > which do things under /var/run without any modification to their previous
> > operation.  When the real /var file system is mounted mount --bind or
> > --move is used to put the file-system back on /var/run from /etc/run. 
> > Optionally we could have special-case code in the script that does mount
> > -a to have it umount /var/run first.
> Can't be umounted, files may be opened. And --move it just to have no
> /run dir is pretty silly.

What I am suggesting is that /var/run be mounted early, and mount --move be 
used to temporarily move it aside while the real /var is mounted and then 
mount --move to move it back afterwards.  No need to umount.

> > I believe that this idea is significantly better than the /run
> > suggestion.  It requires changing no other programs, gives the potential
> > of performance benefits (RAM being faster than disk) and system
> > reliability benefits on flash storage systems, and doesn't require
> > breaking the FHS.
> Basicaly everything that needs /run doesn't use /var/run anyway,
> e.g. mount. And one could link /var/run to /run on both / and /var and
> then nothing needs to change even if it uses /var/run.

You mean to say that nothing needs to change about from adding a new directory 
that's not in the FHS.

http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/   My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/  Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/    Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/  My home page

Reply to: