On Wednesday 25 January 2006 22:40, Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Cutts wrote:
[...] In my case I was mounting /var/run
and /var/lock as tmpfs filesystems all the time to reduce hard disk
access on a machine that was running all the time.
Ubuntu is already mounting tmpfs's on
Peter Samuelson wrote:
That's a bug, IMO - they should mkdir -p in their init scripts if
necessary. It's not like that's hard to do.
Tim Cutts wrote:
[...] In my case I was mounting /var/run
and /var/lock as tmpfs filesystems all the time to reduce hard disk
access on a machine that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 22 Dec 2005, at 11:15 am, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Miquel van Smoorenburg]
I tested this and it works fine. It's also a better solution, since
several packages contain directories in /var/run and ofcourse they
expect them to still exist after
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 09:58:30PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Thomas Hood]
Any other defenders of /lib/run? Of /run?
/etc/run. mtab and resolv.conf and the lvm1 state files and so forth
always lived in /etc before, so there's continuity.
Oh please, let's not dump even more crap
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
Well, it appears there's MS_MOVE support in 2.4 too, since 2.4.19.
mount --move doesn't work here (2.4.27)
Well actually, perhaps we should not even use mount --move. Just
copying the files is enough:
Will that work for sockets?
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Will that work for sockets?
or mmaped files? (however not sure if there are any on early boot).
Like /var/run/samba/*.tdb
Greetings
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:37:11AM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
This works at least on 2.6. [...]
This means that /var/run is always writable.
That's really quite nice. I wonder if requiring 2.6 is even much of a
[Miquel van Smoorenburg]
I tested this and it works fine. It's also a better solution, since
several packages contain directories in /var/run and ofcourse they
expect them to still exist after a reboot.
That's a bug, IMO - they should mkdir -p in their init scripts if
necessary. It's not
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
I tested this and it works fine. It's also a better solution, since
several packages contain directories in /var/run and ofcourse
they expect them to still exist after a reboot.
It is trivial to enhance these packages to support an ephemeral
On Thursday 22 December 2005 20:58, Miquel van Smoorenburg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well actually, perhaps we should not even use mount --move. Just
copying the files is enough:
Copying the files won't work well if some of them are open at the time...
There are 2 conditions for programs
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 09:58:37AM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:37:11AM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
This works at least on 2.6. [...]
This means that /var/run is always
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 05:18:43PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
Putting system directories under /tmp is a really bad idea, it opens
possibilities of race condition attacks by unprivileged users against system
processes. Generally for almost everything we should be looking to reduce
usage
On Friday 23 December 2005 10:36, Gabor Gombas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 05:18:43PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
Putting system directories under /tmp is a really bad idea, it opens
possibilities of race condition attacks by unprivileged users against
system processes.
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 08:45:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
(TBH, I'd be much happier just making the technical changes
necessary to ensure /var is mounted early -- keeps the
filesystem sane, and it's just a simple matter of programming,
rather than arguing over
[Petter Reinholdtsen]
One user is bootlogd, needing before init is started to store
stats about the boot. That is before both these points in the boot.
I managed to write bootlogd when I intended to write bootchartd. That
is the package making statistics about the boot process.
[Anthony
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
/var/run has always been the right place in the namespace; it's just
not been usable for technical reasons. If we fix the technical reasons,
all is good.
Well there is on more technical solution that might have been
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
mount --move . /var/run
mount --move only works in 2.6, not in 2.4. I think something similar
was suggested earlier in the thread and it is a nice solution for linux
2.6 systems.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 01:27, Gabor Gombas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 10:09:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The other aspect is that /var's the place for stuff that varies during
normal use; introducing some other place for the same thing is redundant
and thus
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 04:14:14PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
Sorry for the confusion. bootchartd is a shell script collecting
information into a tmpfs area during boot, and packing it together in
/var/log/ when the boot is over. It have no other way to store the
stats before other
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:37:11AM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
This works at least on 2.6. [...]
This means that /var/run is always writable.
That's really quite nice. I wonder if requiring 2.6 is even much of a
problem -- 2.6.0 came out two years ago already and will be three by
the
/lessdisks), needing a place to
store things generated during boot (mtab, motd, etc). These work
around the issue by hacking the boot sequence quite a lot, but it
would be cleaner if no special handling is required.
As for /run vs /lib/run vs /somewhere on the root partition, I'm not
sure what I
Heh. You know, you could've just said Yes, my heart is set on /run
right at the start and saved us all a lot of trouble...
Let's just say that you aren't doing very well at reading my heart. :)
Here's what I think about /run, or rather, R:
* A tmpfs R elegantly solves a handful of tricky
On Dec 20, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
(TBH, I'd be much happier just making the technical changes necessary
to ensure /var is mounted early -- keeps the filesystem sane, and it's
just a simple matter of programming, rather than arguing over what's
Me too.
--
ciao,
Marco
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 03:42:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
For (a) you just need to wait until S10checkroot.sh has finished.
For (b) you need to wait until S35mountall.sh has finished.
I really like storing the fsck logs and that requires a writable place
before S10checkroot.sh finishes.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 12:10:07PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
* Other proposed solutions are technically inferior, mostly
because they are more complex.
The other aspect is that /var's the place for stuff that varies during
normal use; introducing some other place for the same thing is
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 12:01:44PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Anthony Towns]
Here are the cases:
(a) /var on /, mounted rw during normal operation
(b) /var a local fs, separate to /
(c) / and /var separate NFS mounts
(d) / local, /var an NFS mount
(e) /var
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 10:09:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The other aspect is that /var's the place for stuff that varies during
normal use; introducing some other place for the same thing is redundant
and thus more complex.
The more I think about it, the usage of /run matches /tmp much
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 10:46:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Likewise, how do you document the mounting of /run in mtab?
If you start with a read-only /, then no matter what you do, the first
mount command will not be recorded in mtab (unless you implement a mount
daemon that holds mtab in
Any other defenders of /lib/run? Of /run?
--
Thomas Hood
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any other defenders of /lib/run? Of /run?
/run makes much more sense to me. /lib/run just seems unbearably ugly,
not to mention that it would be kind of nice to have a read-only /lib be a
possibility for a variety of reasons (yes, I know, module
Le lundi 19 décembre 2005 à 20:12 +0100, Thomas Hood a écrit :
Any other defenders of /lib/run? Of /run?
Please go ahead with /run. This has to the right place as no other
proposed location makes sense.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any other defenders of /lib/run? Of /run?
I prefer /run. It certainly doesn't belong in /lib (IMO).
- --
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
On Dec 19, Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any other defenders of /lib/run? Of /run?
If it really needs to exist, something of which I am not persuaded, then
at least it should not go in /.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
* Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Le lundi 19 décembre 2005 à 20:12 +0100, Thomas Hood a écrit :
Any other defenders of /lib/run? Of /run?
Please go ahead with /run. This has to the right place as no other
proposed location makes sense.
I agree, it's no fun creating new
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 11:41:26AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Perhaps this is a bad idea (or perhaps this is even how it's already
done), but given the very limited number of things that would have to use
/run, would it be possible to write them all to use /var/run if it's
available and only
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 08:12:37PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
Any other defenders of /lib/run? Of /run?
Heh. You know, you could've just said Yes, my heart is set on /run
right at the start and saved us all a lot of trouble...
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
[Thomas Hood]
Any other defenders of /lib/run? Of /run?
/etc/run. mtab and resolv.conf and the lvm1 state files and so forth
always lived in /etc before, so there's continuity.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 11:41:26AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any other defenders of /lib/run? Of /run?
/run makes much more sense to me. /lib/run just seems unbearably ugly,
not to mention that it would be kind of nice to have a read-only /lib be a
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
There aren't any technical differences between the first two options.
I agree with that.
Each of the solutions has a degree of ugliness -- in the first case,
the ugliness is in violating the no new directories in / rule and
making /run/ifstate
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 08:45:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
(TBH, I'd be much happier just making the technical changes necessary to
ensure /var is mounted early -- keeps the filesystem sane, and it's just
a simple matter of programming, rather than arguing over what's ugly.
Yeah, I agree
40 matches
Mail list logo
