[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2007/01/15]
Jon Nangle wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 11:24:02AM +0100, Ole-Morten Duesund wrote: > > >>This all depends on where screen puts its sockets. Apparently your >>screen puts them in your homedirectory which appears to be on an nfs >>mount or some thing like that. This means that any screen session that >>runs on a different machine from the one you're using will appear to be >>dead and a candidate for '-wipe'. A more sensibly configured screen >>would store its sockets in a machine-local location. /var/run/screen for >>instance which wouldn't expose non-local screen sessions to an >>unintended '-wipe' >> >>Software sucks, shared storage sucks, non-shared storage sucks. > > > The docs suggest that screen should look at the hostname in the socket > filename and ignore any sockets that aren't on the local host. Seems > reasonable enough, and given that they've gone to the effort to store > the hostname in the socket filename, it makes a certain amount of sense. > > In practice however, screen seems to crap all over everything it doesn't > like the look of at the drop of a hat. So yeah, NFS-mounted socket directories > lose. > > cheers > Jon > > I do have a file ~/.screen/11291.pts-1.rostov (a named pipe, which I didn't immediately realize; vim only gave me my terminal back after I used `kill` to ask). Would configuring screen to store this file on rostov instead of my home directory help matters (make the listing of dead screens correct, make screen -wipe work, make the life of my screen sessions longer in case my machine crashes)?There's stuff above here
Generated at 13:01 on 17 Jan 2007 by mariachi 0.52