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 t
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 tha
-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 a
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 cr
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
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
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 pr
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
> usa
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 09:58:37AM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Anthony Towns 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.
> >T
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 program
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
[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 l
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Anthony Towns 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
>problem -- 2
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
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 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
> > a
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
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Anthony Towns 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 overlooked.
Why not crea
[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 To
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
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 me
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 muc
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
> >
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 redund
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 Dec 20, Anthony Towns 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
signature.asc
Descript
> 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
l after /var/ is mounted.
A third use is read-only clients (LTSP/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 /l
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
Anthony Towns 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 seem more important
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
[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 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
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 on
* 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 t
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
-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/
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]
`. `'
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 depende
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]
40 matches
Mail list logo
