Hi! Just wanted to say thanks for shedding some light in my issue. I've changed my system last week and now I use /srv/fs/partiion1 and /srv/fs/partition2 for permanent mounting local partitions on my fileserver. What I share on samba and nfs is a little bit different, so I still use some remounting on /srv/nfs and /srv/smb, but having all organized in /srv seems to clean up the system quite a bit and if I search something directly on my fileserver I only have to look at one location for now. For now /mnt will only be used on my clients to access my shares from my fileserver. So this all makes more sense ...
Thanks again, Harald > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [email protected] [mailto:fhs-discuss- > [email protected]] Im Auftrag von Jeff Licquia > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 01. März 2012 20:39 > An: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: [fhs-discuss] Question regarding "correct" filestructure > > On 02/29/2012 06:44 PM, Harald Heigl wrote: > > Hi, > > I don't know if this is the right list for my question, but I think many > > people know FHS quite well here, so I'll give it a try. > > > > I have a root disk and some additional discs: disc1, disc2 and some folders > > in these discs (audio, video, photo, .) > > What would be the proposed way? > > 1) Mount my discs to /media/discs1 and /media/discs2 > > 2) Mount them again from /media/discs1/video to /srv/video > > 3) Mount them further to /srv/samba/video and /srv/nfs/video > > /media is more for transient/removable things, like USB sticks or DVDs. > On most modern distros, /media is handled automatically by software. > > If the disks are permanent, mount them wherever it makes sense. It > sounds like somewhere under /srv makes the most sense there. > > > Or should I mount discs1, disc2 directly to /srv and then do my remounts > > from there? I've also thought about /mnt, but FHS says I shouldn't put > > subfolders there, correct? > > FHS (both 2.3 and the draft 3.0) basically says "installers and distros > shouldn't touch /mnt". That should make it safe for you to use, either > directly or with sub-directories. > > > The specification about /srv seems quite unclear to me. It more or less > > states "The methodology used to name subdirectories of /srv is > unspecified > > as there is currently no consensus on how this should be done.", this was > > the information back in 2003 with version 2.3 and now 9 years later no real > > change in draft 3.0, is there really no "consensus"? > > To the extent that a consensus has emerged, it seems to be centered > around organizing it by service. This is probably because the main > sources of "measuring consensus" are the distributions, who won't > obviously be creating stuff like /srv/dropbox or > /srv/jims-old-home-directory. > > That said, I don't think there's any need to follow the distros > slavishly unless there's some benefit. If symlinking or bind-mounting > to /srv/nfs gives you automatic NFS sharing (for example), then great. > Otherwise, I'd just put /srv/disc1 (or whatever) into your /etc/exports. > Ditto for Samba config. > -- > Jeff Licquia > The Linux Foundation > +1 (317) 915-7441 > [email protected] > > Linux Foundation Events Schedule: events.linuxfoundation.org > Linux Foundation Training Schedule: training.linuxfoundation.org > _______________________________________________ > fhs-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss _______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
