g.lip at gmx.com
Mon Nov 22 14:17:06 UTC 2010
On Monday 22,November,2010 09:55 PM, Ioannis Vranos wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 18:35 +0800, Goh Lip wrote:
>> On Monday 22,November,2010 11:55 AM, Tom H wrote:
>>>> Without any kernel, it will take about only 1 MB. Journaling would
>>>> be a waste of resources.
>>> It's not just a question of size. There are very few write operations
>>> on "/boot".
>> Good for clarifying. Of course, one can always use any supported format
>> he/she wishes, though ext2 is more than enough.
> /boot partition "without any kernel" doesn't make sense (I am talking
> about a default installation of /boot).
> I do not think "very few write operations" is an argument too. And?
> Why isn't ext4 used instead for example?
o ext3 = ext2 + journaling
o /boot would NOT be mounted after boot-up
o the journal is never used (since it's not mounted)
o and just wastes space and no benefit
o (this I'm not particularly sure about the exact %)
journaling takes another 60% space requirement
Oh, I do have a 'special boot partition' and it boots up all my OS,
doesn't have any kernel, size of 1.2 MB, modify about once every year
and yes, in ext2.
But as I said, you can keep yours in ext4, why not use btrfs (supported
in natty) for example?
More information about the ubuntu-users