Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have been working with a team who used to install all the application and HTTP services like Apache or Tomcat to the '/srv' directory. I suspect mostly in order to keep the installed services separated from the OS as much as possible. For my own projects I kept this practice. However, over time it more and more looked like this might not be a very good idea: It prevents you from using distribution specific packages (they had a very bad reputation in that team, so mostly everything was custom installations), and I noticed that I was getting into quite some trouble when trying to use chef cookbooks, that are already available.

So lately I was tempted to switch to using the distribution specific packages instead of trying to build custom installations which fit into that directory structure. I was wondering if there is anything that I might be overlooking. Is there actually any good reason to put everything into a '/srv' directory or any good reason to not use the distribution specific packages?

What I currently need in my stack is: nginx, Tomcat (Oracle JDK) and MongoDB.

share|improve this question
    
Not exactly a duplicate, but this Q/A might have interesting information: serverfault.com/questions/540919/… –  dawud Apr 19 at 20:34
    
Thanks, as far as I understand the conventions, the '/srv' directory is supposed to contain the actual files, that are served, but not the applications. To some extend this question also is about wether it is good or not to use distro specific packages... –  codeySmurf Apr 19 at 20:42
    
using /srv may be a good way to apply partition wide policies, such as se-linux, or noexec, whereas /var might need defaults flags. I've seen a use of /srv which was read only, and the admin justified the use of a dedicated mointpoint rather than /var for that purpose. –  aif Apr 21 at 13:44
    
aif: Thanks for your input. When thinking about it more, in that particular case I suspect this mostly has been done as a shortsighted measure to increase security and restrict what the dev team is allowed to do. So, the dev team is able to manipulate their application server, but don't need any permissions to manage the os to do that. –  codeySmurf Apr 21 at 21:20
    
Nitpicking here (on FHS): So I'd need to install wordpress in in /opt but to serve it out recreate/symlink/??? under /srv/.... Or better yet declare it data. But then would a Java based blog be data too or would that go under /opt or .... OH MY GOOD SO MANY OPTIONS! -- Please keep in mind The current version is 2.3. It was announced on January 29, 2004. SO there isn't even /run which is now widely spread (not saying everybody likes it!). The FHS is NOT a standard but very much outdated –  Server Horror May 15 at 20:19

3 Answers 3

up vote 16 down vote accepted

The FHS compliant path to install third party software is not /srv, but /opt. Check here and here.

With regards to whether or not to use precompiled packages, you have two choices:

  • Use them if you trust the vendor regarding security updates and bugfixes. I would, they surely have more manpower and resources dedicated to this task than your company. You can keep using the OS default repositories and packaging infrastructure. You get to live with whatever version the vendor provides (plus backported fixes).
  • Don't use them, and patch your home-brewed installation every time a new vulnerability is made public. You need to maintain your private repositories (well, you can also manually install everything everytime). You can use more recent versions of the software.

If you only need to maintain 5-10 machines, putting everything under /opt is doable, but if you maintain a farm of more than a couple of hundreds, you'd be Doing It Wrong™

In my opinion, the professional way to do it, is to use the vendor supplied precompiled packages unless there is a compelling reason not to.

share|improve this answer

I do not think /srv was ever a good idea. For this case there is /usr/local or /opt directory, while /srv is for site-specific data which are served by the system.

This is defined by Filesystem Heararchy Standard, keep in mind that it is not followed by 100% in all distributions. FHS suggests this:

  • /srv - Site-specific data which are served by the system.
  • /opt - Optional application software packages.

Regarding distro specific packages, you should generally use them unless there is a very good reason not to. Keeping everything up-to-date and making sure you have latest patches can be too hard to maintain and can expose system to additional security risks. Even in the cases when your linux distribution's package manager provides an older than needed version, you can usually find community maintained repositories for newer versions of certain packages which would be easier to maintaint than your own packages. This is usually the case for more popular packages like nginx in distrubutions like CentOS (personal experience).

What I would keep in /srv instead (keep in mind this is personal preference):

  • http vhost-based directories (e.g. /srv/http/example.com)
  • ftpsites (e.g. /srv/ftp/example.com)
  • mailboxes (e.g. /srv/mail/example.com/user)

This helps me keep /srv/ organised with usually managed data while most distributions would keep these files under /var, I use this so I can have same directory structure for common site-specific data across different distributions.

share|improve this answer

This particular example, retargeting every package to /srv, while a form of job security, seems singularly myopic and unproductive from a business prospective (where productive means advancing the usability/profitability/security/etc. of the work environment these applications are serving).

If you can live with what a distro package does to your system, then you're leveraging the development and testing the team that produces the package has put into it now and with the updates. If you can't live with what the distro package does to your system, then find another package or convince/wheedle/harrass the development group to do things "your way" (or at least make it easier to do it "your way") or encapsulate it in a virtual machine. Or put in the minimum amount of effort needed to fix the real/perceived problem and automate the hell out of provisioning and configuration management with your favorite toolset. To paraphrase Dijkstra, simplicity and repeatability are prerequisites for reliability.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.