On Thursday 14 February 2002 04:07, you wrote: > I don't think ReiserFS is worth crying about since it doesn't get > smaller than 32MB... > > A partition that small (such as /boot) isn't getting much activity > anyhow. So using a non journel FS is fine. Or, like you seggested, ext3. > > Fsck on <32MB is hardly even noticable.
What you say is very true. However, to go on to the *rest* of the story, the reasons you enunciate do not pass as reasons NOT to use a capable journaling FS on smaller partitions. I don't see the mandatory use of fsck or sync as being a valid reason for anything, no matter how fast it is; except maybe clinging to a dramatic but inferior version of past evolutionary history best left behind. On the other hand, if you do happen to have a personal fetish for other filesystem types other than journaling, Linux certainly scores with the ability to support those fetishes. Freedom rules; so more power to ya. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
