Hi LQ,
I was not sure where to put his but the question seemed so basic that I felt it more appropriate here than in the server forum.

A google search seems to come to the consensus to use /var/www opposed to /srv/www for web site data files. I seem to have a different opinion and want to ask LQ members what they think.

Edit add: Consider primary disk 80GB, Secondary 0.5TB w/LVM.

If you have a shared apache web server say under Debian, I see a benefit of storing the web site pages/accounts/domains in /srv as I can easily create this mount on another disk/NAS, etc... that can be expanded as the number of accounts and their sizes grow. It may also be easier to backup by the admin and even by the individual user/account owner to their local system.

On the other hand most configurations and documentation default to /var which is typically on the same partition as root / (Although I have often in the past given /var it's own partition).

I tend to think of /var as the home for variable data such as logs and dynamic data files.

Web sites tend to be have more static files and where they are dynamic it is typically in regard to a database and some php code. So it may be served on the fly dynamically but much stays static (Not considering e-commerce web sites here where products and their prices, etc may change frequently but ...).

So what are your thoughts on using /srv or /var for hosted web site files?

Thanks,
Tim

https://wiki.debian.org/FilesystemHierarchyStandard is where I go to seek consensus. I see a lot of folks using /opt differently than what Debian suggest. As for me, /var is my junk drawer because it just grows and grows.

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks kewball for the excellent link.

It describes well what is the current status quo and what applications likely default to on Debian (And likely others especially in that branch). Most useful and informative

I do agree with you that /var can become the "Junk drawer" on the system. That is why I posed the question as to using /srv for particular services thereby "naturally" relegating them to there own .. drawer.

Consider the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (Doc which is somewhat dated .... 2004). Particularly /srv : Data for services provided by this system.

While to utilize the /srv mount point after the fact(Server Install) which would then require symlinks, bind, or other options which may open up its own "can of worms", I was looking specifically for answers in using /srv from the "get go" when first building the server. My apologies if that was not clear .

If I may, please let me try to clarify a bit further:
In particular, I was looking for insight from LQ members into what concerns about or issues they may have run into when configuring a server to use /srv for sql DB, Web site and mail accounts, etc as opposed to using the "default" /var mount point for these services and data.

I guess it is really the "Admin's choice" but I respect your/LQ input to help me make an informed decision.

Are there any "Gotch ya's" besides configuring the proper path during application install that one may need to look out for?

Any Admin/Security/Stability concerns?

All thoughts are welcome and I appreciate any and all help for this linux admin nooby.

Thanks again for your help and
all the best.

Tim

FYI,
Just found this: Using /var/www vs. /srv vs. /home/user/public_html.

I did not see/find this before when I looked but of course it depends on your query terms!

As the thread above is by LQ, it's definitely worth the look.
I just can't see how I didn't find it before??
Thanks to all who contributed to that thread :-D

Looking it over.. It may be relevant (dated 2010) however, at a quick glance it seems more about Apache with which I am already ¨quite¨ comfortable (But always looking for more).

I'm more concerned with the email, mysql, .. aspects.

Anyone?

All the best and with respect,

Tim