On Wed, 31 May 2000, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>Keith Owens writes:
>> "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> wrote:
>>> Thomas Molina writes:
>
>>>> 1. Why is /var/shm such a bad place?
>>>
>>> Just like the proc and devfs filesystems, this belongs at the top.
>>> It really doesn't fit within anything else. Besides, flatter trees
>>> are faster and easier to navigate. So, mount it on /shm.
>>
>> As long as getcwd() does a tree walk up to /, mounting anything on a
>> directory directly under / is not a good idea. I have seen getcwd()
>> hang because an NFS directory was mounted as /xxx instead of /nfs/xxx .
>
>That looks like a network filesystem problem. If the "server" for
>/shm goes down, you won't be worried about getcwd() anymore.
It doesn't directly relate to the netowrk file system other than it
has a tendency to lock the directory containing the mount point. If
getcwd is used in a different directory tree than the nfs tree it hangs
when it reaches the common directory tree (/ in this case).
>We already have /proc, which isn't causing getcwd() hangs.
>Besides, Linux has a real getcwd() system call.
/proc is a local file system, as is root; so it doesn't have the same
failure context.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse I Pollard, II Email: pollard@cats-chateau.netAny opinions expressed are solely my own.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:27 EST