| 1 |
Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 12 April 2011 15:10:52 James wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Stroller<stroller<at> stellar.eclipse.co.uk> writes: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>>> There's no need for extents on such a small partition, |
| 8 |
>>> nor journalling (because you write to /boot so |
| 9 |
>>> rarely, the likelihood of a power failure when you're |
| 10 |
>>> doing so is minuscule). |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>> Yea, sure, but that's not the point. I just wanted to |
| 13 |
>> use ext4 for everything. Not on this system, but often, |
| 14 |
>> my boot partition is very active, as I copy many kernels |
| 15 |
>> there for many different (arch)machines and different hardware |
| 16 |
>> (HD, SSD, CF, SD...) I try to make the many systems I admin |
| 17 |
>> as homogeneous as possible, hence the switch to ext4 |
| 18 |
>> for boot. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
> Nevertheless, if ext4 isn't working for you you should follow the advice you've |
| 21 |
> been given and format /boot as ext2. All my boot partitions are ext2, regardless |
| 22 |
> of which others are ext4 or reiserfs. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Same here. I use ext3 and reiserfs, depending on what it is, but /boot |
| 27 |
is always ext2. Why, it works well with grub and has for many many |
| 28 |
years and most likely will for many years to come as well. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
As for making things the same, that my not always be a good idea |
| 31 |
either. I put some things on reiserfs but some on ext3. It seams each |
| 32 |
file system has its strengths and weaknesses. I read that portage, with |
| 33 |
a lot of small files, does better on ext* file systems. So I put |
| 34 |
portage on that. Most everything else is on reiserfs. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Just my $0.02 worth and that ain't much. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Dale |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
:-) :-) |
Archives