On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. < b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:
> I'm also a current reiser3 user. I find the ability to shrink the > filesystem > to be something I am not willing to do without. > You know, I said the same thing, but then as the kernel and GRUB and the like advanced, I noticed that my reiserfs partitions would have to replay the journal every time I rebooted, even after a clean shutdown. I started calculating how many times I shrunk any of my partitions in the last 8 years, and I can only recall twice. And since I have several terabytes around the house, I figure I can migrate data and delete/recreate partitions if I really need to reduce it. > I have not read the rest of the thread, but my off-the-cuff recommendation > would be to start migration to btrfs. Now that the on-disk format has > stabilized, I am going to start testing it for filesystems other than > /usr/local, /var, and /home. Assuming I can keep those running well for > 6-12 > months, I will migrate /usr/local, /var, and then /home, in that order, > with a > 1-3 month gap in between migrations. > I might play with it for some non-critical partitions, or ones that I can mirror on an established filesystem, even if it is only to use in an "Archive Island" scenario, where I have a LV that I can mount, sync and umount. However, btrfs is not included in the kernel, is it? As I recall, nilfs2 has kernel support, but that was the only one of the new filesystems, at the time when I started looking at this. > It's an aggressive migration plan, but reiser3 is just barely maintained in > the kernel, and btrfs is the only filesystem I have heard of that even > advertises all the features I need. > > I've already encountered an issue related to btrfs in my very isolated > deployments. The initramfs created by update-initramfs does not appear to > mount it properly. Instead I am given an '(initramfs)' prompt and I have > to > mount the filesystem manually (a simple two-argument mount command > suffices) > and continue the boot process. This is fine for my laptop, but servers > (and > even my desktop) need to be able to boot unattended; I am still > investigating > the issue, which may just be due to my configuration. > That is enough to give me pause... --b
