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

From: Jesse Pollard (
Date: Wed May 31 2000 - 05:24:40 EST

On Wed, 31 May 2000, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>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.

It doesn't directly relate to the netowrk file system other than it
has a tendency to lock the directory containing the mount point. If
getcwd is used in a different directory tree than the nfs tree it hangs
when it reaches the common directory tree (/ in this case).

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

/proc is a local file system, as is root; so it doesn't have the same
failure context.

Jesse I Pollard, II

Any opinions expressed are solely my own.

- 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 - 21:00:27 EST