Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?

From: Theodore Y. Ts'o (tytso@MIT.EDU)
Date: Fri Jun 02 2000 - 07:23:55 EST

   Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 11:21:18 -0700
   From: "H. Peter Anvin" <>

   David Howells wrote:
> > Thomas Molina writes:
> >
> > > 1. Why is /var/shm such a bad place?
> ...
> > It really doesn't. It belongs in /dev more than anything, just like
> > /dev/pts and friends.
> Why not mount it under /proc somewhere? Maybe /proc/shm.
> David Howells

   /proc really also should have been under /dev, however, there were
   historical precendent (SysV) for /proc. However, there is no reason to
   perpetuate this with additional filesystems.

My personal preference is with those think /shm is a better place, but I
agree that /var/shm is a bad place for it.

Besides the "people may have /var cleaners that get confused" reason,
/var is often a mountpoint in its own right (for those people who give
/var its own filesystem), and mounting /var/shm on top of /var means
that if something goes wrong and you can't unmount /var/shm, you won't
be able to unmount /var, either.

                                                        - Ted

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:15 EST