Re: Does /var/shm still need to be mounted?

From: Albert D. Cahalan (
Date: Wed May 31 2000 - 00:39:14 EST

Keith Owens writes:
> "Albert D. Cahalan" <> 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.

We already have /proc, which isn't causing getcwd() hangs.
Besides, Linux has a real getcwd() system call.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:26 EST