/srv?

Nick Fotopoulos weasel at beyondnormal.org
Wed Jul 14 15:39:14 PDT 2004


On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 17:56 -0400, Jason Gurtz wrote:
> 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.

So did I, but thats not how its described in the FHS 2.3 doc.

> Cheers,
> 
> ~Jason
> 
> -- 
-- 
Nick Fotopoulos

"Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool."




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list