Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Tuesday 12 April 2011 15:10:52 James wrote:
Stroller<stroller<at> stellar.eclipse.co.uk> writes:
There's no need for extents on such a small partition,
nor journalling (because you write to /boot so
rarely, the likelihood of a power failure when you're
doing so is minuscule).
Yea, sure, but that's not the point. I just wanted to
use ext4 for everything. Not on this system, but often,
my boot partition is very active, as I copy many kernels
there for many different (arch)machines and different hardware
(HD, SSD, CF, SD...) I try to make the many systems I admin
as homogeneous as possible, hence the switch to ext4
for boot.
Nevertheless, if ext4 isn't working for you you should follow the advice you've
been given and format /boot as ext2. All my boot partitions are ext2, regardless
of which others are ext4 or reiserfs.
Same here. I use ext3 and reiserfs, depending on what it is, but /boot
is always ext2. Why, it works well with grub and has for many many
years and most likely will for many years to come as well.
As for making things the same, that my not always be a good idea
either. I put some things on reiserfs but some on ext3. It seams each
file system has its strengths and weaknesses. I read that portage, with
a lot of small files, does better on ext* file systems. So I put
portage on that. Most everything else is on reiserfs.
Just my $0.02 worth and that ain't much.
Dale
:-) :-)
