Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:41:38 +0000 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> Cc: Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Using TMPFS for /tmp and /var/run? Message-ID: <CADLo83_nxHeQROBE-gPb58ZqsNKCPriEO4ta6sPTkALDANFKQw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F746F1E.6090702@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <4F746F1E.6090702@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 29 Mar 2012 16:49, "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > > I was wondering if there are some objections using TMPFS for /tmp and > /var/run. > I figured out some problems with some rc.d scripts when using TMPFS for > /var/run, samba and OpenLDAP do store some informations like PID in a > subfolder of their own in /var/run, but the rc.d scripts are not > checking properly the existence of the appropritae folder (unlike "dbus" > and "hald", they check properly!). > > I already submitted two PRs, but for SAMBA, my "hack" is trivial and > obviously to clumsy, so it should be check properly. > > My question is whether there are objections using TMPFS for bot /tmp/ > and /var/run/ at this stage on FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT/amd64? Any rc script that complains about an empty /var/run is buggy- it should be assumed that it will be emptied on boot. In short, tmpfs for those two dirs should be fine. Chrishelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83_nxHeQROBE-gPb58ZqsNKCPriEO4ta6sPTkALDANFKQw>