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
On Saturday 16 February 2002 04:18, you wrote:
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
On Saturday 16 February 2002 23:51, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
On Saturday 16 February 2002 04:18, you wrote:
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
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
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.
On Sun, 2002-02-10 at 14:23,
For a partition so small why on earth would you even use a JFS? If you
are never going to touch it make it ext2 and mount it ro.
journal a FS that is going to undergo many changes (basically an active
FS) when you mess with your kernel (or ar messing with something in
/boot) just run
On Sunday 10 February 2002 16:28, you wrote:
For a partition so small why on earth would you even use a JFS? If you
are never going to touch it make it ext2 and mount it ro.
journal a FS that is going to undergo many changes (basically an active
FS) when you mess with your kernel (or ar
I wanted to go with ReiserFS originally for the software root-raid
configuration that I have on my system, but I was shocked to discover that
the FS did not support filesystems less than 32 meg in size.
In retrospect, I think that Red Hat has made the right determination in
recommending the
On Sat, 2002-02-09 at 02:43, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
I wanted to go with ReiserFS originally for the software root-raid
configuration that I have on my system, but I was shocked to discover that
the FS did not support filesystems less than 32 meg in size.
Just out of curiosity, why would you
Dave Sherman wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why would you want a partition less than 32MB
anyway? My laptop has a small hard drive (4.5 GB),
No, my laptop has a small hard drive -- 250 MB. ;-)
(Of course, I haven't tried to install Linux on it.) Works fine with
Windows 3.1, Office95 (all
On Saturday 09 February 2002 11:02, you wrote:
On Sat, 2002-02-09 at 02:43, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
I wanted to go with ReiserFS originally for the software root-raid
configuration that I have on my system, but I was shocked to discover
that the FS did not support filesystems less than 32 meg
On 9 Feb 2002, Dave Sherman wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why would you want a partition less than 32MB
anyway? My laptop has a small hard drive (4.5 GB), and even trying to
save space on it, I still made the /boot partition 39 MB. I think mmost
people set /boot to 50 MB or so, and that's
If you do choose ReiserFs, please ensure that you have disk write-caching
turned off (I dont know how - maybe edit bdflush parameters?) I recently
experienced a lot of file corruption due to power failure on my reiserfs
partitions. Please note, I did not fool around with write caching, so maybe
On Sunday 03 February 2002 03:20, you wrote:
Before I attempt tonight to try another install should I use RaiserFS
(Seen somewhere in the instalation guide) or a linux native
partition? Will RaiserFS create any sticky situations for a newbie?
thanks for your help ;x
Richard
Whatever you
Before I attempt tonight to try another install should I use RaiserFS (Seen
somewhere in the instalation guide) or a linux native partition?
Will RaiserFS create any sticky situations for a newbie?
thanks for your help ;x
Richard
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to
On Saturday 02 February 2002 19:20, you wrote:
Before I attempt tonight to try another install should I use RaiserFS (Seen
somewhere in the instalation guide) or a linux native partition?
Will RaiserFS create any sticky situations for a newbie?
thanks for your help ;x
Richard
Reiser has
i will second that, reiser has been both good and fast, and stable too.
On Saturday 02 February 2002 19:33, you spoke unto me thusly:
Reiser has been good to me.
--
Going from DOS to Linux is like trading a glider for an F117.
shane
registered linux user @ http://counter.li.org/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before I attempt tonight to try another install should I use RaiserFS (Seen
somewhere in the instalation guide) or a linux native partition?
Will RaiserFS create any sticky situations for a newbie?
thanks for your help ;x
Richard
On Saturday 02 February 2002 22:20, you wrote:
Erylon,
There's another problem also. Reiser Fs cannot be used on partitions less
than 32 meg in size. This precluded the possibility of using it for the
/boot partition on my root-raid system. I felt it was desirable to keep all
filesystems
19 matches
Mail list logo
