Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> /bin/mount foo:whatever /bin
>
> I was considering commenting on this, I think if you want to start
> going down this track it would be simpler to write/adapt a script that
> automatically creates an initramfs.
Yes, this is surely true. When I had t
> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> sbin is for things that should be in root's path. The
Thomas> executables in question are ones that shouldn't be in
Thomas> anyone's path. (The standard example is programs started
Thomas> only by inetd.)
[David Weinehall]
> Ehrm, I don't think having /usr/lib on a fat FS is an option anyway,
> considering its lacking file ownership/permission support and its
> filename munging...
I should think the lack of symlink support is the real problem.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 11:47:31AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[snip]
> But the problem remains that you have to look at each dire entry in
> unhashed ext2/3, fat or minix.
Ehrm, I don't think having /usr/lib on a fat FS is an option anyway,
considering its lacking file ownership/permissio
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le jeudi 12 mai 2005 à 18:32 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
>> > You said it: there is a cache. After the first access, the directory
>> > will be in the cache. Making all of this a purely imaginary problem.
>>
>> The whole directory is in the
> "Peter" == Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> [Thomas Bushnell BSG]
>> Um:
>>
>> /bin/mount foo:whatever /bin
I was considering commenting on this, I think if you want to start
going down this track it would be simpler to write/adapt a script that
automatica
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. Debian is figuring it out. My whole point is that you've shifted
> the job of doing so to the site admin. If you are expecting dpkg to
> take on the responsibility for peeking under people's mounted /bin
> directories and installing/upgrading th
> > That's a huge administrative hassle. Not only do you have to figure
> > out what programs and libraries /bin/mount depends on so you can make
> > sure they're on your real root partition, but the packaging system
> > doesn't - and shouldn't - do anything to help you keep the two copies
> > of
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 03:38:33AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> This just seems like change for the sake of change, with trivial benefits,
>> if any.
>
> I agree, and I admit to not having read this whole thread, but has anyone
> made a serious argumen
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Thomas Bushnell BSG]
>> Um:
>>
>> /bin/mount foo:whatever /bin
>
> That's a huge administrative hassle. Not only do you have to figure
> out what programs and libraries /bin/mount depends on so you can make
> sure they're on your real root partiti
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 03:38:33AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> This just seems like change for the sake of change, with trivial benefits,
> if any.
I agree, and I admit to not having read this whole thread, but has anyone
made a serious argument as to why we need yet another directory for non-u
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 10:02:30AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> I should mention that I'm still waiting for your benchmark
> results on how a drastic reduction in /usr/lib size speeds up the
> runtime linker. On *any* filesystem, O(n)-lookups or not.
>
> (In case you missed it, I explained how
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 07:21:26AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For me, this is a closed issue until you change the FHS. (Something that
> > I don't think is very likely to happen, but best of luck to you.)
>
> Since the FHS tries to be respo
[Thomas Bushnell BSG]
> Um:
>
> /bin/mount foo:whatever /bin
That's a huge administrative hassle. Not only do you have to figure
out what programs and libraries /bin/mount depends on so you can make
sure they're on your real root partition, but the packaging system
doesn't - and shouldn't - d
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For me, this is a closed issue until you change the FHS. (Something that
> I don't think is very likely to happen, but best of luck to you.)
Since the FHS tries to be responsive to what different distributions
want, this doesn't help in the question: Sh
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Thomas> We've been told that /usr is necessary to allow network
> Thomas> sharing. Of course, you can network share any directory,
> Thomas> not just /usr. If you want executa
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> Wait, are you serious? The bloat of /usr/lib having thousands of
>> files doesn't bother you, but the two dozen in /usr is bothersome?
>
> We dont talk about thousands, on a edium sized system it is a few h
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Wait, are you serious? The bloat of /usr/lib having thousands of
> files doesn't bother you, but the two dozen in /usr is bothersome?
We dont talk about thousands, on a edium sized system it is a few hundred
directories and up to thousand files/symlinks
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Most packages had files in /usr/doc. Most packages do not have files in
> /usr/lib at all, and most of those that do, wouldn't need to be changed.
Changing from /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc was a fairly simple and
straightforward change in a whole
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 12:14:19AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I'm just not seeing any benefits that are worth bloating /usr.
>
> Wait, are you serious? The bloat of /usr/lib having thousands of
> files doesn't bother you, but the two dozen in /usr is bothersome?
Huh? Using libexec wou
> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> We've been told that /usr is necessary to allow network
Thomas> sharing. Of course, you can network share any directory,
Thomas> not just /usr. If you want executables to be shared, then
Thomas> share /bin.
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Most applications I've seen that use libexec make it entirely trivial
> to move it to /usr/lib: "./configure --libexecdir=/usr/lib". (I don't
> think apps that don't do this, or something like it, should be a major
> consideration here--take apps out of
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 11:00:09AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't personally care on /usr/lib vs. /usr/libexec, except that the idea
> > of going through and changing all the packages in Debian really
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I do believe you've missed the point. Splitting /usr from / helps in a
>> teeny percentage of cases, and most of the cases where it "helps" that
>> have b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> I do believe you've missed the point. Splitting /usr from / helps in
>> a teeny percentage of cases, and most of the cases where it "helps"
>> that have been m
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't personally care on /usr/lib vs. /usr/libexec, except that the idea
> of going through and changing all the packages in Debian really doesn't
> appeal to me (and however easily spread that cost, it's a lot of work --
hat there is a cost to each niggling little
> idiosyncracy where Debian differs from upstream. Most of the cost of
> managing upgrades from upstream and the like is re-porting all those
> little niggling bits.
I don't personally care on /usr/lib vs. /usr/libexec, except that the idea
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I do believe you've missed the point. Splitting /usr from / helps in
a teeny percentage of cases, and most of the cases where it "helps"
that have been mentioned here, it actually doesn't.
Well, I think it helps in the case of network mounting it; it is easier
to mount
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I do believe you've missed the point. Splitting /usr from / helps in
> a teeny percentage of cases, and most of the cases where it "helps"
> that have been mentioned here, it actually doesn't. Yet, splitting
> /usr/lib, which is grotesquely huge and har
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> I do believe you've missed the point. Splitting /usr from / helps in
>> a teeny percentage of cases, and most of the cases where it "helps"
>> that have been mentioned here, it actually doesn't.
>
> Well, I think it
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The difference being that Debian has already split /usr from / and
> therefore is only paying the marginal cost of maintaining it, whereas
> Debian has not split /usr/lib from /usr/libexec and would have to pay the
> (far larger) initial cost of moving ev
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I do believe you've missed the point. Splitting /usr from / helps in a
> teeny percentage of cases, and most of the cases where it "helps" that
> have been mentioned here, it actually doesn't. Yet, splitting /usr/lib,
> which is grotesquely huge
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On May 13, 2005, at 11:28, Humberto Massa GuimarÃes wrote:
>>
>> You said it yourself. Even if your 256MB machine were typical (it's
>> not), the less cache memory you use to cache dentries of /usr/lib,
>> the better (more memory for your apps, or t
On May 13, 2005, at 11:28, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
You said it yourself. Even if your 256MB machine were typical (it's
not), the less cache memory you use to cache dentries of /usr/lib,
the better (more memory for your apps, or to cache other, more
useful stuff).
If you suspect that s
Josselin:
> Le jeudi 12 mai 2005 à 18:32 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
> > > You said it: there is a cache. After the first access, the directory
> > > will be in the cache. Making all of this a purely imaginary problem.
> >
> > The whole directory is in the cache? I don't think so. Remem
Le jeudi 12 mai 2005 à 18:32 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
> > You said it: there is a cache. After the first access, the directory
> > will be in the cache. Making all of this a purely imaginary problem.
>
> The whole directory is in the cache? I don't think so. Remember,
> that in betwe
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mercredi 11 mai 2005 Ã 13:35 -0300, Humberto Massa a Ãcrit :
>> Imagine that, to load Konqui, you have to go 200 times to the disk (ok,
>> cache, but...), each of them reading the 1 entries I have in
>> /usr/lib, some of them twice or three t
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Which doesn't? Minix maybe. Even ext2/3 has hashes for dir if you
> > format it that way.
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> Is this the Debian default for installation?
Yes, it is. I just checked and every install I've done turned this on wi
Peter Samuelson wrote:
(...)
HOWEVER
This is a very silly thing to argue about without benchmarks. Those
who care about this - yes, Thomas, I mean you - should get numbers.
Here's how:
(steps 1-6)
You are 100% right and I stand corrected.
--
HTH,
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
Le mercredi 11 mai 2005 à 13:35 -0300, Humberto Massa a écrit :
> Imagine that, to load Konqui, you have to go 200 times to the disk (ok,
> cache, but...), each of them reading the 1 entries I have in
> /usr/lib, some of them twice or three times, to follow the symlinks.
>
> This is a real i
[Humberto Massa]
> As I said before, as far as I recall, the Debian installer suggested
> me only filesystems that have O(1) [O(log n) worst case] directory
> lookup. I chose reiserfs, but the installer IIRC suggested ext3 and
> xfs as alternatives.
As Christoph (I think) said, Debian creates ex
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 17:35, Humberto Massa wrote:
> This is not an imaginary problem, after all, in principle.
>
> Let's see, as I wrote before, my installation has *thousands* of files
> in /usr/lib and, in some filesystems, this can add up to a very large
> time (and ab-use of dentry cache m
Will Newton wrote:
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 17:21, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
BUt according to Christoph Hellwig, the ext3 which is the default is
used without directory indexing, which returns you to O(n).
You have yet to present any numbers which show there is a problem here.
Can we pleas
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 17:21, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> BUt according to Christoph Hellwig, the ext3 which is the default is
> used without directory indexing, which returns you to O(n).
You have yet to present any numbers which show there is a problem here.
Can we please discuss real world
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>>Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>>
>>>
What does the default Debian install do?
>>>Debian seems to use ext3 with
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What does the default Debian install do?
Debian seems to use ext3 without directory indexing by default.
Which is a sane choice as directory i
Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would you agree that "that bug" should be fixed (in Etch), irrespective
> of whether the FHS is also changed to split /usr/lib?
I'm not expert enough on the other factors that might be relevant to
say.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> What does the default Debian install do?
>
> Debian seems to use ext3 without directory indexing by default.
> Which is a sane choice as directory indexing on ext3 still seems to
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
default? A: Last time I installed Debian (15 days ago), it asked me if
I wanted my partition ext3, xfs, or reiserfs IIRC; I chose reiserfs,
and I am pretty su
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 11 May 2005 05:50, Goswin von Brederlow
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
>> >
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > Why would it be desirab
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 05:50, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
> >
>
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> What does the default Debian install do?
Debian seems to use ext3 without directory indexing by default.
Which is a sane choice as directory indexing on ext3 still seems to
be not fully mature.
And as mentioned in another thre
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 05:47, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > / on LVM allows for snapshot backups which are the most convenient method
> > of backup.
>
> Except that the kernel freezes the device because the DM lock and
> device node updating deadlock.
>
> Might work with ud
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
default? A: La
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> These are two
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
>>> default? A: Last time I installed Debian (15 days ago), it asked me if
>
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only reason we don't have it is because of petty bickering and
> politics between the FHS folks (several years ago).
That seems a good description of the FHS in general...
-Miles
--
In New York, most people don't have cars, so if you want to kill a p
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Ext2 direntry is 8bytes plus filename (or onlined symlinks, which you have
> a lot on /usr/lib). In my case 54bytes per entry.
Me bad - the symlinks are inlined in the inodes of course.
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
>> default? A: Last time I installed Debian (15 days ago), it asked me if
>> I wanted my partition ext3, xfs, or reiserfs IIRC; I ch
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> How many directory entries do you think fit in a block?
If I see this right I habe 80blocks for 756 entries:
# ls -a | wc -l
756
# ls -lsd
80 drwxr-xr-x 122 root root 57344 May 10 06:34 ./
Most likely in dache. Still a lot to traverse.
Ext2 direntry
Thomas Bushnell BSG dijo [Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:08:57PM -0700]:
> >> If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
> >> think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
> >> semantic significance at all), why separate /lib from /etc?
> >
> > I don't see a semant
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> No lvm backup data available in case of superblock corruption. Bad
>> idea. No booting with init=/bin/sh to patch things back together as /
>> can't be mounted. Bad idea again.
>
> You can store the backup w
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
>> better than linear search time for open, and are they used by a
>> default Debian install?
>
> /etc/ld.so.cache
Um, no. ld.so.cache g
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>>> These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
>>> with the possible exception of FAT and Minix.
>>
>>
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
> default? A: Last time I installed Debian (15 days ago), it asked me if
> I wanted my partition ext3, xfs, or reiserfs IIRC; I chose reiserfs,
> and I am pretty sure finding a file in
> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> You've missed the point. Split / and /boot, that makes
Thomas> sense if it's necessary. Splitting / and /usr does not
Thomas> make sense.
Bad example.
A better example might be if you want to mount /usr via N
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
For sharing the /usr tree among multiple machines with different
architectures (I guess).
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> No lvm backup data available in case of superblock corruption. Bad
> idea. No booting with init=/bin/sh to patch things back together as /
> can't be mounted. Bad idea again.
You can store the backup wherever you like, and an emergency boot via usb
stick
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
> better than linear search time for open, and are they used by a
> default Debian install?
/etc/ld.so.cache
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 08:12:38AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We do not have that bug, so it's not important to us.
>
> Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
> better than linear search time for open, and ar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> hoi :)
>
> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:45:32PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
>> Should we change some of these to /usr/libexec?
>
> well, it would be against the FHS, I think.
>
> The BSDs use libexec but I don'
Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 21:37 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 17:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
> >> > Almost all the schemas were already moved out to /usr/share. We plan to
> >> > move the defaults directo
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
>
> On fedora-devel Bill Nottingham suggested having /usr/lib vs /usr/lib64 for
> programs that
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:39, Goswin von Brederlow
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> / on lvm is a major pain in case of error and if you already need a
>> seperate / partition adding another for /boot is a bit stupid.
>
> / on LVM allows for snapshot b
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>> These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
>> with the possible exception of FAT and Minix.
>
> ext2 doesn't.
Convert it to utilize directory hashing. Th
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 17:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
>> > Almost all the schemas were already moved out to /usr/share. We plan to
>> > move the defaults directory structure to /var/lib/gconf after the
>> > release - at least, the default
GOMBAS Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>
>> the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
>> the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
>
> (I assume that /boot is on /. If not, the following still applies
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:21:50PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> >ext2 doesn't.
> >
> With dir_index, yes it does.
If you want to forward port a three year old patch full of bugs and
incompatible to the dir_index used in ext3 - all luck to you.
All debian kernel-image packages don't have it for
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix.
ext2 doesn't.
With dir_index, yes it does.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
> with the possible exception of FAT and Minix.
ext2 doesn't.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
> better than linear search time for open,
reiserfs, ext2/3 (with dir_index), and probably others.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
You've missed the point. Split / and /boot, that makes sense if it's
necessary. Splitting / and /usr does not make sense.
Sure it does. Especially if you want / to be in a Flash disk and /usr to
be somewhere else in the network.
HTH
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
On fedora-devel Bill Nottingham suggested having /usr/lib vs /usr/lib64 for
programs that care about such things and /usr/libexec for programs
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
We do not have that bug, so it's not important to us.
Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
better than linear search time for open, and are they used by a
default Debian install?
These
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:39, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tuesday 10 May 2005 10:36, Goswin von Brederlow
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> - / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
> >> problems
Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 17:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
> > Almost all the schemas were already moved out to /usr/share. We plan to
> > move the defaults directory structure to /var/lib/gconf after the
> > release - at least, the defaults brought by package; we have to keep a
> > default
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 10 May 2005 10:36, Goswin von Brederlow
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> - / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
>> problems for /boot.
>
> I believe that there are LILO patches for /boot on LVM. There's no reason
>
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 10 May 2005 02:18, Goswin von Brederlow
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and
>> > having the same directory names used across dis
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 10:21 +0200, GOMBAS Gabor a écrit :
>> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 05:42:31AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>>
>> > > - / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
>> > > problems for /boot.
>> >
>> > Why is tha
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lvm has its backup data in /etc by default. If you ever need it you
> are screwed with / on lvm. Also snapshots and pvmove don't work
> (deadlock).
>
> raid0/5 don't have support in the bootloaders.
>
> reiserfs/xfs miss support in bootloaders or
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> - / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
>> problems for /boot.
>
> Why is that?
Lvm has its backup data in /etc by default. If you ever need it you
are screwed with / on lvm. Also s
GOMBAS Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>
>> the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
>> the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
>
> (I assume that /boot is on /. If not, the following still applies
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 00:55, GOMBAS Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
> > the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
>
> (I assume that /boot is on /. If not
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What do you think are the original reasons "/" needed to be small?
I know what they are. PDP-11 boot loaders couldn't access long block
addresses. This was copied into 32V on the Vax, where it entered
4BSD.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We do not have that bug, so it's not important to us.
Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
better than linear search time for open, and are they used by a
default Debian install?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
> the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
(I assume that /boot is on /. If not, the following still applies to
/boot.)
Well, grub _does_ access the filesyste
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 10:36, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
> problems for /boot.
I believe that there are LILO patches for /boot on LVM. There's no reason why
GRUB and other boot loaders couldn't be updated in
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 02:18, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and
> > having the same directory names used across distributions provides real
> > benefits (copying con
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
