| 1 |
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 11:33 -0400, Drake Donahue wrote: |
| 2 |
> > |
| 3 |
> > If I'm correct you're running into the ext3 large inode issue. Briefly, |
| 4 |
> > old versions used 128 byte inodes, while newer versions use 256 byte |
| 5 |
> > inodes by default, in ordered to be ready for the improvements coming in |
| 6 |
> > ext4. The problem is that legacy grub doesn't support the larger inodes, |
| 7 |
> > and isn't being developed any longer so that isn't going to change, while |
| 8 |
> > new grub isn't even scheduled for format compatibility stability until |
| 9 |
> > late this year! |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> An interesting find. Were the inodes for ext2 also defaulted to 256 or only |
| 13 |
> those for ext3? This question relevant as Raffaele only talked about using |
| 14 |
> ext2 and vfat partitions on the pen drive. In a quick search I found no |
| 15 |
> indications. If ext2 inode structure was also changed much more should be |
| 16 |
> heard about this. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I confirm that by default mkfs.ext2 created 256 byte inodes so I'm |
| 20 |
positive about Duncan's suggestion. I'll try to re-create the partition |
| 21 |
forcing inode size to 128. I'm using stable amd64 system, updated a |
| 22 |
couple of weeks ago. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-amd64@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives