[foxboro] AW: foxmonitor startup problems

Just add a user for every directory in /usr and you're there...

Regards,
Sascha


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]Im Auftrag von Stear, Bo
Gesendet: Freitag, 13. Dezember 2002 14:31
An: 'foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Betreff: Re: [foxboro] foxmonitor startup problems



I never gleaned the meaning of 'etc' in all my travels but I do know that
'usr' is certainly misused.  Most interprete it as 'user' files but Unix
developers set it up as 'Universal System Resources'.

-----Original Message-----
From: Darryl Bond [mailto:dbond@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:57 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] foxmonitor startup problems



Actually I think /etc is entirely the wrong place to be putting log files.
/, /etc, /usr and  /opt should, theoretically, be able to be mounted
readonly-
no messing with files then and backups have much more chance to be
consistant
/var is for variable data and is where Solaris puts all its spools,logs etc.

I put all my logs under /var/tmp under directories for each 'program'
(samba,apache,foxboro).

so, my recommendation would be:
#!/bin/sh
exec >/var/tmp/foxboro/log.S99FOXBORO 2>&1
set -x

Regards
Darryl Bond

stan wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 04:27:36PM -0500, Johnson, Alex (Foxboro) wrote:
>
>>Actually, it was a bad place to put it.
>>
>>
>>I usually use / for this log file on my machine, but I got sloppy. Good
>>catch.
>>
>>How about this:
>>
>>      #!/bin/sh
>>      exec >/etc/rc2.d/log.S99FOXBORO 2>&1
>>      set -x
>>
>
> Actually, as one of my co-workers pointed out, I think Alex's original
idea
> (while not pretty) would _not_ cause a problem. As my co-worker pointed
out
> the executable bit will not get set on the created logfile, thus init (at
> least I _think_ that's what executes these startup scripts) would not be
> able to execute teh logfile.
>
> Of course, if init (or whatever executes these), _sources_ the
> /etc/rc?.d/S* files on a run level change, all bets are off, and it
_would_
> be a problem.
>
> Anyone know for certain?
>
>



_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html

foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave



_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html

foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave


 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
 
foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave

Other related posts: