| 1 |
On Tuesday 12 April 2011 09:57:26 Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tuesday 12 April 2011 15:10:52 James wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> Stroller<stroller<at> stellar.eclipse.co.uk> writes: |
| 5 |
> >>> There's no need for extents on such a small partition, |
| 6 |
> >>> nor journalling (because you write to /boot so |
| 7 |
> >>> rarely, the likelihood of a power failure when you're |
| 8 |
> >>> doing so is minuscule). |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >> Yea, sure, but that's not the point. I just wanted to |
| 11 |
> >> use ext4 for everything. Not on this system, but often, |
| 12 |
> >> my boot partition is very active, as I copy many kernels |
| 13 |
> >> there for many different (arch)machines and different hardware |
| 14 |
> >> (HD, SSD, CF, SD...) I try to make the many systems I admin |
| 15 |
> >> as homogeneous as possible, hence the switch to ext4 |
| 16 |
> >> for boot. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > Nevertheless, if ext4 isn't working for you you should follow the advice |
| 19 |
> > you've been given and format /boot as ext2. All my boot partitions are |
| 20 |
> > ext2, regardless of which others are ext4 or reiserfs. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Same here. I use ext3 and reiserfs, depending on what it is, but /boot |
| 23 |
> is always ext2. Why, it works well with grub and has for many many |
| 24 |
> years and most likely will for many years to come as well. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> As for making things the same, that my not always be a good idea |
| 27 |
> either. I put some things on reiserfs but some on ext3. It seams each |
| 28 |
> file system has its strengths and weaknesses. I read that portage, with |
| 29 |
> a lot of small files, does better on ext* file systems. So I put |
| 30 |
> portage on that. Most everything else is on reiserfs. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Where did you read that portage, with lots of small files, is best on ext*? |
| 33 |
I was under the impression that reiserfs has better performance with lots of |
| 34 |
smaller files. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Joost |
Archives