> > disadvantages:
> >ext3 isn't a real journalingfs or better: it hasen't the ful
> > power. Forget ext3.
>
> Do you mean "it doesn't do metadata-only journaling"? Perhaps you
> mean "it's not finished".
Yes; it was only the current state.
>
> >xfs is non-free stuff
>
> Pe
Hartmut Koptein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> disadvantages:
>ext3 isn't a real journalingfs or better: it hasen't the ful
> power. Forget ext3.
Do you mean "it doesn't do metadata-only journaling"? Perhaps you
mean "it's not finished".
>xfs is non-free stuff
Perhaps you are
Joey Hess wrote:
>
> bug1 wrote:
> > > What is the advantage to delaying partitioning, get it out of the way
> > > fast and you have the whole harddrive to play with.
> > >
> > If you get it out the way first, then you limit how powerfull it can be.
> >
> > If we delay partitioning till after the
bug1 wrote:
> > What is the advantage to delaying partitioning, get it out of the way
> > fast and you have the whole harddrive to play with.
> >
> If you get it out the way first, then you limit how powerfull it can be.
>
> If we delay partitioning till after the installer has accessed the
> de
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Tue Jun 20, 2000 at 03:37:17AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > I think you are forgetting about something...
> > how is partitioning going to be accomplished without user interaction.
> >
> > I'm not aware of any tools that can take a description of a
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, bug1 wrote:
> Bruce Sass wrote:
> > I think you are forgetting about something...
> > how is partitioning going to be accomplished without user interaction.
> >
> > I'm not aware of any tools that can take a description of a filesystem
> > then partition and setup a harddrive
On Tue Jun 20, 2000 at 03:37:17AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> No argument here.
>
> I think you are forgetting about something...
> how is partitioning going to be accomplished without user interaction.
>
> I'm not aware of any tools that can take a description of a filesystem
> then partition a
Bruce Sass wrote:
> I think you are forgetting about something...
> how is partitioning going to be accomplished without user interaction.
>
> I'm not aware of any tools that can take a description of a filesystem
> then partition and setup a harddrive(s) accordingly, that seems to be a
> task ne
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, bug1 wrote:
> Bruce Sass wrote:
> > > Bruce Sass wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, bug1 wrote:
> > > > > How and Interim filesystem might work (as i see it)
> > > >
> > > > Why have an interim fs?
> > >
> > > 1) To get around any space limitations presented by the boot mediu
> > And what about raiserfs or better jfs ?
> >
>
> I havent tried reiserfs yet, from what i know it save us a bit of space
> with small files wouldnt it, does it have nay other advantages ?
>
> Whats jfs?
jfs is the journaling-file-system from ibm -- the aix filesystem without
the LVM.
We h
Hartmut Koptein wrote:
>
> > > > How and Interim filesystem might work (as i see it)
> > >
> > > Why have an interim fs?
>
> And what about raiserfs or better jfs ?
>
I havent tried reiserfs yet, from what i know it save us a bit of space
with small files wouldnt it, does it have nay other adv
> > > How and Interim filesystem might work (as i see it)
> >
> > Why have an interim fs?
And what about raiserfs or better jfs ?
Hartmut
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruce Sass wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, bug1 wrote:
> > Bruce Sass wrote:
> > > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, bug1 wrote:
> > > > How and Interim filesystem might work (as i see it)
> > >
> > > Why have an interim fs?
> >
> > 1) To get around any space limitations presented by the boot medium, or
> > r
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, bug1 wrote:
> Bruce Sass wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, bug1 wrote:
> > > How and Interim filesystem might work (as i see it)
> >
> > Why have an interim fs?
>
> 1) To get around any space limitations presented by the boot medium, or
> ramdisk.
> It is delaying the pa
Bruce Sass wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, bug1 wrote:
> > How and Interim filesystem might work (as i see it)
>
> Why have an interim fs?
>
> - Bruce
1) To get around any space limitations presented by the boot medium, or
ramdisk.
It is delaying the partitioning process till later on
Some very interesting ideas, the loop mounted raid is a neat trick.
bug1 wrote:
> Case 2 : TRADITIONAL : This is the traditional method used, it requires
> partitioning prior to setting up any nonram filesystems, if this method
> is taken there aren't really any advantages to an interim filesyste
Joey Hess wrote:
> I think this would require a minimum of 16 mb of disk space, and
> probably a bit more. Since with ramfs, disk space == memory, this
> would limit installations to systems with around 20-32 mb of memory.
> I don't think that's very acceptable.
>
> I don't see how you could use
17 matches
Mail list logo
