| 1 |
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Joshua Murphy <poisonbl@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
[ snip ] |
| 3 |
> Well, given that it's there, it cleans up after itself, and it avoids |
| 4 |
> issues in the instance where /var isn't available early on, is there |
| 5 |
> much reason _not_ to link /var/run and /var/lock over to their |
| 6 |
> respective equivalents on /run? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I use systemd, which was the one introducing both /run and /run/lock: |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2011-March/001757.html |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
With systemd, /var/run and /var/lock are bind-mounted to /run and |
| 13 |
/run/lock respectively. /run uses in my laptop (regularly suspended, |
| 14 |
with an uptime of 25 days) 8.8 megabytes, which I think is basically |
| 15 |
nothing for my 4 gigabyte RAM. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
After more programs (dracut, plymouth) started using /run and |
| 18 |
/run/lock, OpenRC implemented the same functionality; or so I read |
| 19 |
somewhere, I haven't used OpenRC in a while. In theory, it should work |
| 20 |
the same as with systemd. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Regards. |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
| 25 |
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación |
| 26 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |
Archives