| 1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 06:01:18 +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> The question should be if and why to use /boot at all on modern systems. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> Grub is able to boot from various system combinations. btrfs, lvm, |
| 7 |
>> mdraid, even encrypted disks (however, in the last case, it is not that |
| 8 |
>> trivial to install grub). |
| 9 |
> The other question is why use GRUB on a modern system? UEFI boot managers |
| 10 |
> are far simpler to work with than GRUBs monster configuration file and in |
| 11 |
> that case it makes sense to combine /boot with the ESP and use VFAT for |
| 12 |
> it. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> As for the original question, AIUI ext2 was recommended more because there |
| 15 |
> was no need for ext3/4 and journalling on such a small filesystem, rather |
| 16 |
> than there being any compelling reason for not using ext4, so use what |
| 17 |
> you want. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Correct me if I'm wrong here, it used to be that grub, the original |
| 23 |
version not the current bloated one, had to have ext2. At the time, |
| 24 |
that was *the* file system. If I recall correctly, a ext4 file system |
| 25 |
can be *read* the same as ext2. The difference is the journal. So, |
| 26 |
when booting, grub etc is only reading /boot and it shouldn't matter if |
| 27 |
it is ext2, ext3 or ext4. It's only when being written to that it |
| 28 |
matters. Am I recalling that right? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Another one of those times where Linux provides a ton of options. :/ |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Dale |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
:-) :-) |
Archives