Chris Gianelloni posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Mon, 03 Oct 2005 08:54:21 -0400:
> On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 10:02 +0000, Chris Bainbridge wrote: >> On 02/10/05, R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > I still think it's retarded to have a reiser 4 boot partition, but >> > whatever stirs your pot. ;P >> >> It makes sense if you're actually using reiser4 for everything else. >> Why bloat your kernel with an extra FS just for /boot? > > The space added to a kernel for ext2 is *much* less than the overhead of > using a journaling file system for /boot. You're wasting exponentially > more space using reiser on /boot. The same would be true if you were > using ext3, which is why you always see us suggesting using ext2 for > boot. Disk-space, yes. However, memory-wise, kernel memory is locked memory, not swappable. If one is already using reiserfs for other partitions, using it for boot and either not compiling ext2 or making it a module and not loading it under normal circumstances, means more efficient use of memory. Disk-space @ 50 cents a gig, tens of megs is no big deal. Memory space @ 50 dollars a gig or more, and much less of it to spare, a few tens of kBytes, particularly of locked memory, IS a big deal. (Kernel 2.6.14-rc3 ext2.ko, compiled for size on amd64, 63,839 bytes, here.) However, all the arguments based on space required for journalling go out the window with reiser4, because as I explained in a previous post, it's more literally atomic commits than traditional journalling. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
