On Saturday 16 February 2002 20:20, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > 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.
I've found that it depends on the kernel you're using. A couple of months ago I installed a kernel that could not boot from a reiserfs boot partition (that was the message I repeatedly got when trying boot with that kernel). I was determined to try the kernel so reinstalled and changed the boot partition to ext2 which booted no probs after installing the new kernel. I don't remember which kernel it was, because at the time I was experimenting and installed 7 different kernels in about 4 days. Anyway, since I keep upgrading my kernel (I don't know why I do that ;) ) I decided to leave my /boot and / partiitons as ext2. Obviously not all kernels can handle reiserfs and after all it is a relatively new fs. Haven't tried any of the other journalling fs for /boot. skinky -- oxymoron: Microsoft Works
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
