Michael Evans wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Doug Ledford wrote:
On 02/01/2010 03:32 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Doug Ledford wrote:
On 01/18/2010 05:09 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
I understand there is a problem here, but I don't like this approach
to a
solution. I'll give it more though when I get home from LCA2010 and
see
what I can come up with.
Feel free to come up with something different. But, if your solution
involves maintaining an additional read/write mount area in deference to
a long dead unix tradition, I'm just going to shake my head and patch
your solution away to something sane.
I don't understand you argument here. Not the one where you say you're
going to ignore Neil and do what you want because you can, I understand
that, but the "additional read/write mount area" part, isn't /var/run
r/w on all systems now? Could you clarify why this is "additional" here?
It's not necessarily read/write in the initrd time frame, and putting
the mdadm files there means it would have to be. We didn't make these
changes because we wanted to, we made them because using mdadm raid
arrays for the root filesystem combined with incremental assembly or
with imsm raid devices was broken otherwise.
Do understand that my disquiet related to this isn't because you put a
non-device in /dev, it's that you
didn't put a process PID in /var/run. And frankly, once you let (force) one
group of threads to be somewhere
else, other services will want their PIDs some other place, and anyone
maintaining an application
which presents information on what's running will need to know where that
information.
In other words, it's not where you put it, it's where you *didn't* put it,
that seems to be an
invitation to put stuff just anywhere. Neil argues that they are not
devices, I argue that
they are PIDs. It's not as though it were a huge effort to move it after
pivot root, it's a little code
or script and in space which will be released.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
"We can't solve today's problems by using the same thinking we
used in creating them." - Einstein
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Thank you for stating your concern; I think knowing that a very
plausible solution is obvious.
# at initrd/initramfs creation time
ln -s /dev/.run /var/run
#initrd/initramfs script
mkdir /dev/.run
The usual area becomes a symlink to a memory disk .Most systems have
ample memory to support a few extra tiny files there. Cleanup on
reboot is automatic. Any systems that are memory constrained probably
already either have a drive they could swap this data out to, or would
rather save the writes from reaching flash media anyway.
The only possible side effect of that is that applications which put
information in /var/run/subdir would have to create the subdir at run
time rather than at the time of installing the application. And looking
at my /var/run directory many applications do seem to have
subdirectories in /var/run which were created when the applications were
installed. I count 31 on this system, a quick check on other systems
reveals up to 41 and 14-24 of those directories have not been used since
the system was installed. That is, the applications have never been run.
Does it really make sense to force modification of every application
which installs a subdirectory in /var/run, and incur the overhead in
each of those applications of checking for the directory and creating it
if missing, as opposed to a single line in an init script to copy the
boot time PID files from /dev to /var/run? It seems as if a lot of work
and overhead is being generated for the applications, just to save a
tiny bit of work for the people implementing a new boot procedure.
(cd /dev .run && find . -depth | cpio -pdm /var/run; cd -; rmdir /dev/.run)
Not only would this need a change in Fedora packages, but anyone writing
a package for Linux in general would have to do it "the Fedora way" and
even though Fedora is popular, I think some applications would choose to
avoid the overhead and need ugly hacks in rc.local to create the
directories at boot.
All in all, I think the overhead belongs in the boot process, not all
the existing applications.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
"We can't solve today's problems by using the same thinking we
used in creating them." - Einstein
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
