On Nov 8, 2011 5:03 PM, "Dale" <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 09:26:50PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: >> >>> ext2/3/4 are all backwards compatible. ext4 does have a certain feature >>> (I forget what) that once used breaks this compatibility but you are >>> highly, highly unlikely to ever do that on /boot. >>> The benefits of ext3/4 are irrelevant for /boot anyway - that >>> filesystem is write-seldom, read ever so slightly more often. >> >> Really? I put my PC into power saving mode before going to bed each >> evening. The PC needs to read /boot to return to normal operation. >> >>> -- >>> Alan McKinnnon >>> alan.mckin...@gmail.com > > > Really. It takes maybe 1/4 of a second for it to load the kernel from /boot. After that, it may not read /boot again until you boot back up the next day. So, 1/4 of a second per boot is very little. The only other time /boot is used is when you update grub or your kernel. That is maybe a 1 or 2 second write, if that much. Even if you hibernate/sleep/reboot a few times a day, it is still read very little. That is pretty much irrelevant. > > Me, I have always put ext2 on /boot. I just don't see much need in anything fancy for something that is used so seldom plus everything is likely stored somewhere else anyway. The kernel should be in the kernel source directory and a emerge of grub would restore everything else except the config. Not much to lose there. >
Not to mention that /boot usually has a noauto option, so it's very unlikely that a wayward prog can somehow bollix up the filesystem. In addition, if one's using ext4, the in-kernel ext4 fs driver performs perfectly well as an ext2/3 driver. Rgds,
