Re: XFS on root
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:09:00 -0300 Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI
<renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 09:52:12 +0000
> Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > >Why use Ext2 and not Ext 3 or 4 for /boot?
> >
> > I believe the reasoning is to keep /boot as simple and as robust as
> > possible. ext3 and ext4 are, while mostly compatible with ext2, not
> > as well supported. There are third-party drivers, for example, that
> > don't know about the journal of ext3 or the extents of ext4. And
> > besides, these take up unnecessary space on a file system which is
> > only written to, say, once every few months.
> >
> > Ext2 provides a balance between features (i.e. being sufficiently
> > UNIX-y (which FAT isn't)), and simplicity.
>
> Not to mention that, given the rarity of changes in /boot, a
> journalling FS may not be really useful...
Exactly. The reason I don't use ext4 for /boot, but ext2 is that I
simply don't see the need for journalling in a partition that sees only
occasional writes.
I don't really want journalling for /boot, because it's largely
redundant and slower than not having journalling. Debian offers three
non-journalling filesystems in the installer- ext2, fat, and ntfs.
Since I want something UNIX-y, fat and ntfs are out, which leaves ext2.
Faster than ext3 and 4, but still UNIX-compatible.
Reply to: