转｜理解Unix系统下bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin的区别

Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin split

Rob Landley rob at landley.net
Thu Dec 9 15:45:39 UTC 2010
Previous message: Applet for detecting the filesystem type.
Next message: Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin split
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Tuesday 30 November 2010 15:58:00 David Collier wrote:

I see that busybox spreads it's links over these 4 directories.

Is there a simple rule which decides which directory each link lives
in.....

For instance I see kill is in /bin and killall in /usr/bin.... I don't
have a grip on what might be the logic for that.

You know how Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie created Unix on a PDP-7 in 1969?
Well around 1971 they upgraded to a PDP-11 with a pair of RK05 disk packs (1.5
megabytes each) for storage.

When the operating system grew too big to fit on the first RK05 disk pack (their
root filesystem) they let it leak into the second one, which is where all the
user home directories lived (which is why the mount was called /usr). They
replicated all the OS directories under there (/bin, /sbin, /lib, /tmp...) and
wrote files to those new directories because their original disk was out of

1. When they got a third disk, they mounted it on /home and relocated all

2. user directories to there so the OS could consume all the space on both

disks and grow to THREE WHOLE MEGABYTES (ooooh!).

Of course they made rules about "when the system first boots, it has to come up
enough to be able to mount the second disk on /usr, so don't put things like
the mount command /usr/bin or we'll have a chicken and egg problem bringing
the system up." Fairly straightforward. Also fairly specific to v6 unix of 35
years ago.

The /bin vs /usr/bin split (and all the others) is an artifact of this, a
1970's implementation detail that got carried forward for decades by
bureaucrats who never question why they're doing things. It stopped making
any sense before Linux was ever invented, for multiple reasons:

1) Early system bringup is the provice of initrd and initramfs, which deals
with the "this file is needed before that file" issues. We've already got a
temporary system that boots the main system.

2) shared libraries (introduced by the Berkeley guys) prevent you from
independently upgrading the /lib and /usr/bin parts. They two partitions have
to match or they won't work. This wasn't the case in 1974, back then they
had a certain level of independence because everything was statically linked.

3) Cheap retail hard drives passed the 100 megabyte mark around 1990, and
partition resizing software showed up somewhere around there (partition magic
3.0 shipped in 1997).

Of course once the split existed, some people made other rules to justify it.
Root was for the OS stuff you got from upstream and /usr was for your site-
local files. Then / was for the stuff you got from AT&T and /usr was for the
stuff that your distro like IBM AIX or Dec Ultrix or SGI Irix added to it, and
/usr/local was for your specific installation's files. Then somebody decided
/usr/local wasn't a good place to install new packages, so let's add /opt!
I'm still waiting for /opt/local to show up...

Of course given 30 years to fester, this split made some interesting distro-
specific rules show up and go away again, such as "/tmp is cleared between
reboots but /usr/tmp isn't". (Of course on Ubuntu /usr/tmp doesn't exist and
on Gentoo /usr/tmp is a symlink to /var/tmp which now has the "not cleared
between reboots" rule. Yes all this predated tmpfs. It has to do with read-
only root filesystems, /usr is always going to be read only in that case and
/var is where your writable space is, / is mostly read only except for bits
of /etc which they tried to move to /var but really symlinking /etc to
/var/etc happens more often than not...)

Standards bureaucracies like the Linux Foundation (which consumed the Free
Standards Group in its' ever-growing accretion disk years ago) happily
document and add to this sort of complexity without ever trying to understand
why it was there in the first place. 'Ken and Dennis leaked their OS into the
equivalent of home because an RK05 disk pack on the PDP-11 was too small" goes
whoosh over their heads.

I'm pretty sure the busybox install just puts binaries wherever other versions
of those binaries have historically gone. There's no actual REASON for any of
it anymore. Personally, I symlink /bin /sbin and /lib to their /usr
equivalents on systems I put together. Embedded guys try to understand and
simplify...

Rob

GPLv3: as worthy a successor as The Phantom Menace, as timely as Duke Nukem
Forever, and as welcome as New Coke.
Previous message: Applet for detecting the filesystem type.
Next message: Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin split
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the busybox mailing list

Ref:

1. http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html