Re: reiserfs and /boot
mdevin <mdevin@ozemail.com.au> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 02:47:02 -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > on Wed, Apr 24, 2002, mdevin (mdevin@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
> > > I am looking into changing over to reiserfs on all my
> > > partitions. I tried this once before about 1yr ago and
> > > everything was OK, but I remember that I left a small partition
> > > as ext2 for /boot.
> > >
> > > I can't remember the whole details for why I left /boot ext2
> > > now, but it was something to do with reiserfs otherwise
> > > requiring a no-tails option and thus using more space ?????
> > >
> > > Can anyone enlighten me on what is recommended with respect to
> > > changing over to reiserfs for all partitions? I have been unable to
> > > find any mention of a particular need to leave one partition ext2 in
> > > the reiserfs FAQ or the namesys site.
> >
> > If you're dead-set on this, switch from LILO to GRUB.
>
> Why do you say this? I read somewhere that LILO works fine with
> reiserfs since (about) version 21.6. Can you explain why GRUB is
> needed? Not that I have anything against it, but I have only ever
> used LILO.
I use LILO and all my partitions are reiserfs. Never had any trouble
and I don't have the "notail" option set. I believe that is something
that was required before LILO was updated to know about reiser.
> > That said, I'll echo comments here. Reiserfs is overkill (and >
> > wasteful) for really small partitions. I tend to set my cutoff
> > around 100-200 MiB. /boot's typically 10-20 MiB.
>>
> > The problem is the reiserfs journal node, which is about 32 MiB,
> > invariant, itself.
It's a matter of perspective. Who cares if you waste a bit of disk
space or it's 5-10% slower when accessing that small partition? How
often do you access /boot anyway? If you're worrying about wasting
30MB of disk space then you probably shouldn't be running a
journalling FS anyway.
> > If you really want journaling, make /boot, /, and /tmp ext3fs.
> >
> I don't really need journalling for /boot, especially since I mount it
> read only anyway. So I guess I can leave it ext2. I did do this 1 yr
> ago when I last experimented with reiserfs. I just couldn't remember if
> it was solely due to a wasted space issue for such a small partition.
For me, it was a convenience. I don't want a mis-mash of partition
types. Too much maintenance if something crashes (was that an ext2,
ext3, or reiser FS?). And I've got plenty of disk space to burn.
I will say this, on another system I manage I do have an ext3
partition so that I can use ACLs and it's been just as trouble free as
the reiserfs partitions. I started using reiser before ext3 was stable
so that's really the only reason I use reiser instead of ext3 for the
majority of my partitions.
Gary
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: