michael chang wrote:
On 8/8/05, David Masover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
michael chang wrote:
On 8/8/05, David Masover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hans Reiser wrote:
David Masover wrote:
Raymond A. Meijer wrote:
On Monday 8 August 2005 13:32, Hemiplegic Menehune wrote:
Its already as stable as any other fs on my systems and recovers
better than most when my battery runs out. Any idea when it will make
it into the stable 2.6 kernel?
If only it had a resizer :(
Resizer isn't such a big deal. I can usually find enough backup for
enough of what I want, and I usually get sizes right the first time.
I want a resizer (or at least a converter so I can convert to
ResierFS, resize, and reconvert back) because I have a dual-boot WinXP
and Linux/ReiserFS 3.6 system, which I really want to convert to
Reiser4.
That's about my situation.
I don't mind putting XP on a FAT partition so I can squeeze
Dear God, no! Learn to use ntfsresize. It doesn't even require that
you defragment first -- it will defragment an NTFS partition in order to
shrink it, then set a flag that tells Windows to run its equivalent of
fsck on the next boot.
But the start of a NTFS parition is fixed. So is that of ResierFS
3.6, in parted. Besides, when my hard drive is 99% full and all the
files that need to be defragmented are in the MFT area, I really think
FAT is saner. I had that happen to me before. Honest.
Wait, are you saying the start of a FAT partition will move?
I eventually figured out how to resize stuff properly. But, what I'd
like to be able to do is grow any partition both ways. I don't care so
much about ntfsresize, since I keep my Windows partition near the front
of the disk (to boost the speed of Windows -- for Linux, I have Reiser),
Obviously, you and I have different opinions to solve the same
problem. Since I try and squeeze around 17 GBs or so of stuff on 2
partitions on a 20 GB disk, then I have loads of problems. At this
rate, I'm going to put /boot on a ext2 partition at the top, then put
in a Reiser4 partition, then my FAT windows partition.
FAT seems to defragment easier than NTFS when full. Emphasis on the
full bit. My partitions are always full, never empty. No time. Why?
Because I don't have a CD/DVD burner to offload stuff. That's why.
It's probably not polite to say this, but CD/DVD burners are quite cheap
these days, as is storage in general. For something like $120 each, I
got a pair of 250 gig hard drives. DVD burners are more like $50, plus
$20 gets you 100 blank write-once single-layer DVDs.
And you do know about the 75% rule, right?
but I'd like to be able to move the beginning of the FS -- either
backwards, to grab unused Windows space, or forwards, to give space back
to Windows.
I used to do this. Then I found that Ext2 and ResierFS's beginnings
won't budge. So I just tacked my FAT partition at the end. Who needs
Windows anyways? At the rate it was going, there wouldn't have been a
performance gain putting it at the beginning. I spend most of my time
in Linux.
This also makes me think you're saying FAT resizes both ways...
different heads, there's a striped RAID -- also within reach of a
desktop power user like myself.
Striped RAID only works if you have multiple disks and a decent bus.
I'm stuck on the lowest-end Dell Dimension 3000, with one of the
slowest hard drives in history. And I haven't gotten around to
opening the case... yet.
Every consumer has different values, and different approaches. Some
are still as stubborn as a mule, and you have to accomidate for them,
or lose them.
I don't work here, but believe me, they are trying. It seems they are
still trying to get in the mainstream kernel, which means dealing with
lots of stubborn people...
