Kaspar Schleiser schrieb:
Hey,
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
This has been bothering me for some time. Why does btrfs need to have
a disk greater then 256M? I could see a much smaller limit, say 16M
but why so much? The file system itself does not need that much space
for its own use.
In other words, 256M limit rather disqualifies btrfs as a filesystem
i.e. for /boot, doesn't it?
When 1G is just 10c?
Maybe when talking about traditional HDDs.
Anything flash-based is still $2-$5 per 1G.
I have some SAN devices booting off 512MB or 1G builtin flash. Having
256M for /boot there would not leave much more space for the operating
system.
Why separate /boot? It's still needed for encrypted rootfs or more fancy
partitioning (like / on LVM, at least until GRUB2 is stable and is
shipped by major distros).
Seriously, what are the technical reasons that btrfs needs so much space
for a minimal filesystem?
Just 2 MB is enough for mkfs.ext4 to create a valid filesystem.
Also, the patch seems to be incomplete - i.e. what will happen if we try
to btrfs-convert a 50MB ext3 filesystem into btrfs?
--
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
