Re: ANN: BFs BSE [3.0.8 + EXT3 + Parted]
On Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 02:00:27PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Eduard Bloch <Zomb@channel.debian.de> writes:
>
> > And why do we use EXT2 for the root filesystem? It eats about 200kB
> > compared to minix. Are there any practical reasons for ext2 or should
> > minix be prefered?
>
> No, real research shows the overhead of ext2 is minimal here. We tune
> the inode usage and the block size I think. This was discussed in
> 1999 I think and I have no intention to change this.
The kernel code needed to use minixfs is smaller then the kernel code needed to
drive ext2, but for the boot floppies, we hvae to have ext2 in the kernel since
that is what we format the target system with, and we then have to mount that
filesystem and install stuff to it. For a completely different deeply embedded
application, using only minixfs is a win. But for the boot floppies, we need
to have ext2. Even if Debian later switched to using reiserfs or ext2 or
something else as the default, the boot floppies will continue to need to
support ext2 since they double as rescue disks, and ext2 has a massive
installed base,
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen email: andersee@debian.org, andersen@lineo.com
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
Reply to: