mdevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 02:47:02 -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > on Wed, Apr 24, 2002, mdevin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > I am looking into changing over to reiserfs on all my > > > partitions. I tried this once before about 1yr ago and > > > everything was OK, but I remember that I left a small partition > > > as ext2 for /boot. > > > > > > I can't remember the whole details for why I left /boot ext2 > > > now, but it was something to do with reiserfs otherwise > > > requiring a no-tails option and thus using more space ????? > > > > > > Can anyone enlighten me on what is recommended with respect to > > > changing over to reiserfs for all partitions? I have been unable to > > > find any mention of a particular need to leave one partition ext2 in > > > the reiserfs FAQ or the namesys site. > > > > If you're dead-set on this, switch from LILO to GRUB. > > Why do you say this? I read somewhere that LILO works fine with > reiserfs since (about) version 21.6. Can you explain why GRUB is > needed? Not that I have anything against it, but I have only ever > used LILO.
I use LILO and all my partitions are reiserfs. Never had any trouble and I don't have the "notail" option set. I believe that is something that was required before LILO was updated to know about reiser. > > That said, I'll echo comments here. Reiserfs is overkill (and > > > wasteful) for really small partitions. I tend to set my cutoff > > around 100-200 MiB. /boot's typically 10-20 MiB. >> > > The problem is the reiserfs journal node, which is about 32 MiB, > > invariant, itself. It's a matter of perspective. Who cares if you waste a bit of disk space or it's 5-10% slower when accessing that small partition? How often do you access /boot anyway? If you're worrying about wasting 30MB of disk space then you probably shouldn't be running a journalling FS anyway. > > If you really want journaling, make /boot, /, and /tmp ext3fs. > > > I don't really need journalling for /boot, especially since I mount it > read only anyway. So I guess I can leave it ext2. I did do this 1 yr > ago when I last experimented with reiserfs. I just couldn't remember if > it was solely due to a wasted space issue for such a small partition. For me, it was a convenience. I don't want a mis-mash of partition types. Too much maintenance if something crashes (was that an ext2, ext3, or reiser FS?). And I've got plenty of disk space to burn. I will say this, on another system I manage I do have an ext3 partition so that I can use ACLs and it's been just as trouble free as the reiserfs partitions. I started using reiser before ext3 was stable so that's really the only reason I use reiser instead of ext3 for the majority of my partitions. Gary -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
