/srv?

Jason Gurtz jason at tommyk.com
Wed Jul 14 14:56:17 PDT 2004


On 7/14/2004 15:42, Nick Fotopoulos wrote:

> We do need a better place to store web, ftp, databases that are made
> public in one way or another and /srv sounds like the place to do it,
> but I think we should hold out on /srv until they have worked out better
> what it is, _isn't_, and a solid structure for the subdirs.  Both of the
> ideas for subdir heirarchy are bad, which is why, i guess they havn't
> chosen either one of them yet.

I've always made a separate partition and mounted it as /web, /www,
/ftp, etc...  It really does make sense, especially from a security and
administrative perspective

What's in a name anyway; as long as it's not too long to type it doesn't
bother me?

Maybe I'll start doing /srv/[httpd, ftpd, named] instead.

I guess named data could be highly volatile for some people but mine
sure isn't.  If I did dhcp with dynamic client registration then it
definitely would be.  Maybe it is better off as /var/named  Certainly
not /var/spool/named because the data is not going anywhere.

I always thought that the difference between /tmp and /var was that /tmp
was a place for misc. data that is OK to lose by accident.  e.g. files
needed by an installation routine or something like that.  Things in
/var on the other hand would usually be very very bad to lose, no matter
what the reason.

Cheers,

~Jason

-- 



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list