grub and /boot partition - Setup

This is a discussion on grub and /boot partition - Setup ; Hi all, Why is it said that if you are using grub as the boot loader, make the file system that holds the /boot partition an ext2 filesystem ?...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: grub and /boot partition

  1. grub and /boot partition

    Hi all,

    Why is it said that if you are using grub as the boot loader, make the
    file system that holds the /boot partition an ext2 filesystem ?

  2. Re: grub and /boot partition

    On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:42:45 -0700 (PDT), annalissa wrote:

    >Hi all,
    >
    >Why is it said that if you are using grub as the boot loader, make the
    >file system that holds the /boot partition an ext2 filesystem ?


    That's not related to grub, it's because the boot partition is rarely
    written to, thus does not require a journalled filesystem. Making a
    small boot partition journalled is therefore a waste of space.

    Grant.
    --
    http://bugsplatter.id.au/

  3. Re: grub and /boot partition

    annalissa wrote:
    > Why is it said that if you are using grub as the boot loader, make the
    > file system that holds the /boot partition an ext2 filesystem ?


    grub works just fine with ext3, so I don't know why someone would say
    that. ext3 is mostly just ext2 with journaling. So who's saying it?

    If you have a separate /boot partition, you probably don't need to have
    it journaled. After all, how often do you change it that you worry
    changes could be lost in a crash? It certainly doesn't hurt, though.

    Or was your question more about ext2/ext3 vs. xfs vs. reiserfs vs. etc?
    In that case, grub can certainly read those other filesystem types,
    but it's better to stay simple, I'd say. Maybe that's what you heard.

  4. Re: grub and /boot partition

    Grant wrote:
    > On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:42:45 -0700 (PDT), annalissa wrote:
    >
    >> Hi all,
    >>
    >> Why is it said that if you are using grub as the boot loader, make the
    >> file system that holds the /boot partition an ext2 filesystem ?

    >
    > That's not related to grub, it's because the boot partition is rarely
    > written to, thus does not require a journalled filesystem. Making a
    > small boot partition journalled is therefore a waste of space.
    >
    > Grant.


    Oh, my. Folks, be cautious what filesystem you use for /boot or, if you don't
    have that on a separate partition, /. This is because the grub bootloader
    needs to *mount* /boot, in order to read the contents of /boot/grub/ and load
    up your drivers for your disk controllers and filesystems, including the
    loadable kernel modules in /boot/initrd*, and grub (and LILO, and other boot
    loaders) are deliberately very small and only know a few filesystems internally.

    It's a bootstrap process: a very small, very stable tool (formerly LILO, now
    grub) knows just enough to find and install the kernel and modules for the
    rest of the OS. So mounting your / filesystem as something silly, like
    reiserfs, means that you need a separate, small, comprehensible /boot partiton
    in something stable and robust like ext2. ext3 is just ext2 on steroids, and
    is backwards compatible, so most Linux distributions I've seen just use ext3
    for /boot.

  5. Re: grub and /boot partition


    "annalissa" wrote in message
    news:3f97fa14-d270-4512-b7a8-ff6cbf811921@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi all,
    >
    > Why is it said that if you are using grub as the boot loader, make the
    > file system that holds the /boot partition an ext2 filesystem ?


    Basically, whatever file system you choose to install Linux on
    should be fine for your /boot partition.

    Unless your machine is very low end I'd probably go with ext3

    The choice is yours though



  6. Re: grub and /boot partition

    philo wrote:
    > "annalissa" wrote in message
    > news:3f97fa14-d270-4512-b7a8-ff6cbf811921@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
    >> Hi all,
    >>
    >> Why is it said that if you are using grub as the boot loader, make the
    >> file system that holds the /boot partition an ext2 filesystem ?

    >
    > Basically, whatever file system you choose to install Linux on
    > should be fine for your /boot partition.
    >
    > Unless your machine is very low end I'd probably go with ext3
    >
    > The choice is yours though
    >
    >

    But as has been pointed out, you only ever write to the boot partition
    when installing a new kernel, so anything that over complicates it in
    terms of resilience in a read write scenario, is at best wasted, and at
    worst, an unnecessary overhead when booting.

  7. Re: grub and /boot partition

    On 10 Oct, 10:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    > philo wrote:
    > > "annalissa" wrote in message
    > >news:3f97fa14-d270-4512-b7a8-ff6cbf811921@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
    > >> Hi all,

    >
    > >> Why is it said that if you are using grub as the boot loader, make the
    > >> file system that holds the /boot partition an ext2 filesystem ?

    >
    > > Basically, whatever file system you choose to install Linux on
    > > should be fine for your /boot partition.

    >
    > > Unless your machine is very low end I'd probably go with ext3

    >
    > > The choice is yours though

    >
    > But as has been pointed out, you only ever write to the boot partition
    > when installing a new kernel, so anything that over complicates it in
    > terms of resilience in a read write scenario, is at best wasted, and at
    > worst, an unnecessary overhead when booting.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Or when loading new disk controllers, such as new SATA or RAID
    controllers, or whan tweaking your boot parameters, or half a dozen
    other scenaries. And some of us update our kernels fairly regularly
    for support and security update reasons, so please don't assume that
    this is a static filesystem.

  8. Re: grub and /boot partition

    Nico writes:
    > Or when loading new disk controllers, such as new SATA or RAID
    > controllers, or whan tweaking your boot parameters, or half a dozen other
    > scenaries. And some of us update our kernels fairly regularly for support
    > and security update reasons, so please don't assume that this is a static
    > filesystem.


    You still aren't writing to that filesystem often enough to justify a
    complex high-performance filesystem.
    --
    John Hasler
    john@dhh.gt.org
    Dancing Horse Hill
    Elmwood, WI USA

  9. Re: grub and /boot partition

    On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:42:45 -0700, annalissa wrote:

    > Hi all,
    >
    > Why is it said that if you are using grub as the boot loader, make the
    > file system that holds the /boot partition an ext2 filesystem ?
    >

    I agree with the earlier comments that ext2 is a good choice for the boot
    partition. It is not the only choice, though.

    Here is a listing of my grub directory:
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8640 2005-12-20 16:22 e2fs_stage1_5
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8304 2005-12-20 16:22 fat_stage1_5
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7584 2005-12-20 16:22 ffs_stage1_5
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7616 2005-12-20 16:22 iso9660_stage1_5
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 9280 2005-12-20 16:22 jfs_stage1_5
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 451 2008-09-08 16:45 menu.lst
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7712 2005-12-20 16:22 minix_stage1_5
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 10368 2005-12-20 16:22 reiserfs_stage1_5
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 512 2005-12-20 16:22 stage1
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 115922 2005-12-20 16:22 stage2
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 115922 2007-08-13 19:26 stage2_eltorito
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7956 2005-12-20 16:22 ufs2_stage1_5
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7200 2005-12-20 16:22 vstafs_stage1_5
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 10248 2005-12-20 16:22 xfs_stage1_5

    AIUI, the specific "stage 1.5" file which is appropriate for the target
    filesystem is selected when the grub loader is installed. That gives
    it the ability to load stage2. When the loader runs and reaches "stage 2"
    it has the ability to read all filesystems which it knows about. I guess
    that accounts for the similar sizes of stage2 and stage2_eltorito (for
    booting from optical). If there is no stage 1.5 file for the filesystem
    you want to use, then you probably can't use it with grub.

    At some time in the past, I did some tests with grub. IIRC, those tests
    showed that grub works best when stage 1 is installed on the MBR. It did
    not work in all cases when it is installed only on the BPB in combination
    with certain filesystems. In any case, ext2 is stable and works with grub.
    One drawback of ext2 is the time to fsck a large partition. I use xfs
    pretty much exclusively now. YMMV.

    --
    Douglas Mayne

    --
    Douglas Mayne

  10. Re: grub and /boot partition

    John Hasler wrote:
    > Nico writes:
    >> Or when loading new disk controllers, such as new SATA or RAID
    >> controllers, or whan tweaking your boot parameters, or half a dozen other
    >> scenaries. And some of us update our kernels fairly regularly for support
    >> and security update reasons, so please don't assume that this is a static
    >> filesystem.

    >
    > You still aren't writing to that filesystem often enough to justify a
    > complex high-performance filesystem.


    That's why most systems use default ext3. Because ext* is fairly simple, *and*
    because maintaining multiple types of filesystems if itself fragile. Simply
    using ext3 and possibly ext2 allows the use of partition labeling, which is a
    real savior when your disks get re-arranged due to SCSI controller changes.

  11. Re: grub and /boot partition

    On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    > philo wrote:
    >> "annalissa" wrote in message
    >> news:3f97fa14-d270-4512-b7a8-ff6cbf811921@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
    >>> Hi all,
    >>>
    >>> Why is it said that if you are using grub as the boot loader, make the
    >>> file system that holds the /boot partition an ext2 filesystem ?

    >>
    >> Basically, whatever file system you choose to install Linux on
    >> should be fine for your /boot partition.
    >>
    >> Unless your machine is very low end I'd probably go with ext3
    >>
    >> The choice is yours though
    >>
    >>

    > But as has been pointed out, you only ever write to the boot partition when
    > installing a new kernel, so anything that over complicates it in terms of
    > resilience in a read write scenario, is at best wasted, and at worst, an
    > unnecessary overhead when booting.
    >

    But most people don't have a dedicated /boot partition, their "boot
    partition" is the partition where they install the whole distribution,
    which is usually quite large at this point.

    Thus, if you have a small partition just for the kernel and associate
    items, use the simplest filesystem since it won't be accessed much (I
    don't even keep my /boot partition mounted, until I need to do something
    to it). But if you keep the /boot directory in the same partition as
    the rest of the distribution, then the filesystem depends on whatever
    filesystem you want for that whole distribution.

    A different way of viewing this is to have a small partition for /boot
    so you don't have to have any fancy filesystem there.

    Michael


  12. Re: grub and /boot partition

    Michael Black wrote:
    > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    >
    >> philo wrote:
    >>> "annalissa" wrote in message
    >>> news:3f97fa14-d270-4512-b7a8-ff6cbf811921@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
    >>>> Hi all,
    >>>>
    >>>> Why is it said that if you are using grub as the boot loader, make the
    >>>> file system that holds the /boot partition an ext2 filesystem ?
    >>>
    >>> Basically, whatever file system you choose to install Linux on
    >>> should be fine for your /boot partition.
    >>>
    >>> Unless your machine is very low end I'd probably go with ext3
    >>>
    >>> The choice is yours though
    >>>
    >>>

    >> But as has been pointed out, you only ever write to the boot partition
    >> when installing a new kernel, so anything that over complicates it in
    >> terms of resilience in a read write scenario, is at best wasted, and
    >> at worst, an unnecessary overhead when booting.
    >>

    > But most people don't have a dedicated /boot partition, their "boot
    > partition" is the partition where they install the whole distribution,
    > which is usually quite large at this point.


    Actually, most installers (such as RHEL and Fedora, with which I'm most
    familiar) set up a /boot partition by default and use ext3 for consistency and
    support reasons.

    > Thus, if you have a small partition just for the kernel and associate
    > items, use the simplest filesystem since it won't be accessed much (I
    > don't even keep my /boot partition mounted, until I need to do something
    > to it). But if you keep the /boot directory in the same partition as
    > the rest of the distribution, then the filesystem depends on whatever
    > filesystem you want for that whole distribution.
    >
    > A different way of viewing this is to have a small partition for /boot
    > so you don't have to have any fancy filesystem there.
    >
    > Michael
    >


    See above. ext3 is backwards compatible with ext2, and allows simple
    consistency with partitioning and filesystem tools.

  13. Re: grub and /boot partition

    On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:35:04 +0100, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

    ....
    >Actually, most installers (such as RHEL and Fedora, with which I'm most
    >familiar) set up a /boot partition by default and use ext3 for consistency and
    >support reasons.


    Erm, bit rich to extrapolate your Redhat experience to the rest of linux?

    Small boot partitions are less often used these days as we no longer
    need to follow the 'boot partition must be entirely within first 1024
    cylinders' rule for older hard drives. I have one old machine here
    that requires a separate /boot. The rest don't need it, and I tend to
    put in three large primaries for OS, ext., swap, then data partitions.

    Exception to this is the firewall box which has a more complex partition
    layout with separate /usr/local and /var and so on.

    >See above. ext3 is backwards compatible with ext2, and allows simple
    >consistency with partitioning and filesystem tools.


    Ext3 can be mounted as ext2 sans journal. Point is, there's no need
    for a journalled /boot partition, it may as well be ext2 because it
    is not accessed very often -- a journal there sees little use.

    Grant.
    --
    http://bugsplatter.id.au/

  14. Re: grub and /boot partition

    Grant wrote:
    > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:35:04 +0100, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >
    > ....
    >> Actually, most installers (such as RHEL and Fedora, with which I'm most
    >> familiar) set up a /boot partition by default and use ext3 for consistency and
    >> support reasons.

    >
    > Erm, bit rich to extrapolate your Redhat experience to the rest of linux?
    >
    > Small boot partitions are less often used these days as we no longer
    > need to follow the 'boot partition must be entirely within first 1024
    > cylinders' rule for older hard drives. I have one old machine here
    > that requires a separate /boot. The rest don't need it, and I tend to
    > put in three large primaries for OS, ext., swap, then data partitions.


    Oh, yes, that used to be a big hardware and BIOS issue. It remains in use by
    default with various system installers. And I saw this with SuSE, too, which
    was using ReiserFS for /. (Eeeewwww! I hope Novell has changed that!)

    > Exception to this is the firewall box which has a more complex partition
    > layout with separate /usr/local and /var and so on.


    And in general, I agree with the approach that / should be the primary drive
    and not overcompartmentalizing. Really, I'm online here numerous times as
    suggesting such an approach. But if you have a / partition and no separate
    /boot, you're once again back to using ext3 or a more sophisticated filesystem.

    >> See above. ext3 is backwards compatible with ext2, and allows simple
    >> consistency with partitioning and filesystem tools.

    >
    > Ext3 can be mounted as ext2 sans journal. Point is, there's no need
    > for a journalled /boot partition, it may as well be ext2 because it
    > is not accessed very often -- a journal there sees little use.
    >
    > Grant.


    There is *no benefit* to going back to ext2. Seriously. It's like using a 1/2"
    nail instead of a 1" nail in one particular place nailing up boards,
    consistency will keep your life easier.

  15. Re: grub and /boot partition

    On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 07:20:39 +0100, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

    >Grant wrote:
    >> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:35:04 +0100, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >>
    >> ....
    >>> Actually, most installers (such as RHEL and Fedora, with which I'm most
    >>> familiar) set up a /boot partition by default and use ext3 for consistency and
    >>> support reasons.

    >>
    >> Erm, bit rich to extrapolate your Redhat experience to the rest of linux?
    >>
    >> Small boot partitions are less often used these days as we no longer
    >> need to follow the 'boot partition must be entirely within first 1024
    >> cylinders' rule for older hard drives. I have one old machine here
    >> that requires a separate /boot. The rest don't need it, and I tend to
    >> put in three large primaries for OS, ext., swap, then data partitions.


    Actually that doesn't read like I meant? Modern:

    Disk /dev/sda: 80.0 GB, 80025280000 bytes
    255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 9729 cylinders
    Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
    Disk identifier: 0x45e0afb2

    Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
    /dev/sda1 1 1024 8225248+ 7 HPFS/NTFS
    /dev/sda2 1025 2048 8225280 83 Linux
    /dev/sda3 * 2049 3072 8225280 83 Linux
    /dev/sda4 3073 9728 53464320 5 Extended
    /dev/sda5 3073 3328 2056288+ 82 Linux swap
    /dev/sda6 3329 4864 12337888+ 83 Linux

    or old style:

    Disk /dev/hda: 40.0 GB, 40020664320 bytes
    255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 4865 cylinders
    Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
    Disk identifier: 0x28026cf1

    Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
    /dev/hda1 * 1 16 128488+ 83 Linux
    /dev/hda2 17 32 128520 83 Linux
    /dev/hda3 33 48 128520 83 Linux
    /dev/hda4 49 4864 38684520 5 Extended
    /dev/hda5 49 128 642568+ 82 Linux swap
    /dev/hda6 129 1152 8225248+ 83 Linux
    /dev/hda7 1153 2176 8225248+ 83 Linux
    /dev/hda8 2177 3200 8225248+ 83 Linux
    /dev/hda9 3201 4864 13366048+ 83 Linux
    >
    >Oh, yes, that used to be a big hardware and BIOS issue. It remains in use by
    >default with various system installers. And I saw this with SuSE, too, which
    >was using ReiserFS for /. (Eeeewwww! I hope Novell has changed that!)


    Dare I show mount?

    root@pooh:~# mount
    /dev/sda3 on / type reiserfs (rw)
    proc on /proc type proc (rw)
    sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw)
    usbfs on /proc/bus/usb type usbfs (rw)
    tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw)
    deltree:/home/common on /home/common type nfs (rw,hard,intr,addr=192.168.1.1)

    root@later:~# mount
    /dev/hda7 on / type reiserfs (rw)
    proc on /proc type proc (rw)
    sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw)
    /dev/hda2 on /boot type ext2 (rw)
    devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620)
    tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw)
    deltree:/home/common on /home/common type nfs (rw,hard,intr,addr=192.168.1.1)

    Been using reiserfs3 for years, good, reliable, faster than ext3. I am using
    ext4dev on a new box (pooh), but it only mounts with very recent kernels with
    patches, still a lot of changes going in to linux-2.6.28 for ext4.

    I'll probably move to ext4 on new machines when it's production ready (when
    they remove the trial flag controlling the mount).

    Grant.
    --
    http://bugsplatter.id.au/

  16. Re: grub and /boot partition

    Grant wrote:

    > Dare I show mount?
    >
    > root@pooh:~# mount
    > /dev/sda3 on / type reiserfs (rw)
    > proc on /proc type proc (rw)
    > sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw)
    > usbfs on /proc/bus/usb type usbfs (rw)
    > tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw)
    > deltree:/home/common on /home/common type nfs (rw,hard,intr,addr=192.168.1.1)


    I'm *amazed* that it's working properly for /boot. I've had awful issues in
    every production use of reiserfs, partly for SuSE 9.x and various drive
    configurations, and partly when having drive failures on RAID, ReiserFS
    screwing up things and making full backups a nightmare, degrading the
    filesystem even worse if you dared to use the built-in recovery tools.

    ReiserFS is basically dead: Hans Reiser is in prison for murder of his
    mail-order ex-wife, who apparently also robbed him blind. I just don't see
    anyone or anyone else taking it up with the necessary skillsets to complete
    the move to its next version.

    >
    > root@later:~# mount
    > /dev/hda7 on / type reiserfs (rw)
    > proc on /proc type proc (rw)
    > sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw)
    > /dev/hda2 on /boot type ext2 (rw)
    > devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620)
    > tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw)
    > deltree:/home/common on /home/common type nfs (rw,hard,intr,addr=192.168.1.1)
    >
    > Been using reiserfs3 for years, good, reliable, faster than ext3. I am using
    > ext4dev on a new box (pooh), but it only mounts with very recent kernels with
    > patches, still a lot of changes going in to linux-2.6.28 for ext4.
    >
    > I'll probably move to ext4 on new machines when it's production ready (when
    > they remove the trial flag controlling the mount).
    >
    > Grant.


    I'm keeping an eye on it, and also on ZFS, which is increasingly common for
    network appliances.

  17. Re: grub and /boot partition


    "Nico Kadel-Garcia" wrote in message
    news:48F08332.8060201@gmail.com...
    > Grant wrote:
    >
    > > Dare I show mount?
    > >
    > > root@pooh:~# mount
    > > /dev/sda3 on / type reiserfs (rw)
    > > proc on /proc type proc (rw)
    > > sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw)
    > > usbfs on /proc/bus/usb type usbfs (rw)
    > > tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw)
    > > deltree:/home/common on /home/common type nfs

    (rw,hard,intr,addr=192.168.1.1)
    >
    > I'm *amazed* that it's working properly for /boot. I've had awful issues

    in
    > every production use of reiserfs, partly for SuSE 9.x and various drive
    > configurations, and partly when having drive failures on RAID, ReiserFS
    > screwing up things and making full backups a nightmare, degrading the
    > filesystem even worse if you dared to use the built-in recovery tools.
    >
    > ReiserFS is basically dead: Hans Reiser is in prison for murder of his
    > mail-order ex-wife, who apparently also robbed him blind. I just don't see
    > anyone or anyone else taking it up with the necessary skillsets to

    complete
    > the move to its next version.
    >
    >



    Too bad about Hans

    brilliant in one area

    a fool in another



  18. Re: grub and /boot partition

    On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:42:58 +0100, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

    >Grant wrote:
    >
    >> Dare I show mount?
    >>
    >> root@pooh:~# mount
    >> /dev/sda3 on / type reiserfs (rw)
    >> proc on /proc type proc (rw)
    >> sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw)
    >> usbfs on /proc/bus/usb type usbfs (rw)
    >> tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw)
    >> deltree:/home/common on /home/common type nfs (rw,hard,intr,addr=192.168.1.1)

    >
    >I'm *amazed* that it's working properly for /boot.


    I started using reiserfs a few years ago when ext3 was unexpectedly locking
    up a couple times a week. Had absolutely no problems with reiserfs3.

    Only time I lost data was when I ignored the warning to reboot after
    partitioning and prior to formatting -- spent a week loading backups
    from CDROM

    > I've had awful issues in
    >every production use of reiserfs, partly for SuSE 9.x and various drive
    >configurations, and partly when having drive failures on RAID, ReiserFS
    >screwing up things and making full backups a nightmare, degrading the
    >filesystem even worse if you dared to use the built-in recovery tools.


    Well reiserfs is basically non-recoverable, though I've successfully used
    the resize tools.
    >
    >ReiserFS is basically dead: Hans Reiser is in prison for murder of his
    >mail-order ex-wife, who apparently also robbed him blind. I just don't see
    >anyone or anyone else taking it up with the necessary skillsets to complete
    >the move to its next version.


    Yeah but reiserfs3 was completed and brought to production status by Suse.
    Hans R. failed to complete the project because he was already working on
    it's replacement -- he also did not get along with the kernel development
    team.

    What's happened recently in Reiser's life has no bearing on reiserfs3, it
    will die simply because the couple people at Suse that know the details
    are moving on -- this is why Suse switched to ext3 as default format,
    there's a document on their website details why reiserfs has no future,
    and this from before the trouble Hans got himself into. Like the other
    poster said, brilliant at filesystems, hopeless at people skills

    I've also got something installed with JFS, just for grins -- but the
    difference is so slight I can't remember which box it's installed on.

    Same with ext4 -- only notice it's there because of that old lost+found
    directory.

    Drifted a bit from grub + /boot...

    Reiserfs is a waste for small boot partitions because it has a 32MB
    control file. On the other hand, it needs no regular fsck pass because
    it performs an integrity check and journal replay if needed, each time
    it is mounted.

    Grant.
    --
    http://bugsplatter.id.au/

  19. Re: grub and /boot partition

    annalissa wrote:
    > Hi all,
    > Why is it said that if you are using grub as the boot loader, make the
    > file system that holds the /boot partition an ext2 filesystem ?


    I am not expert on this subject but if I am not mistaken any distro which you
    allow to do its own thing will set up /boot as ext2 as there is nothing to
    journal. That advice would appear to be useful only if you take the option to
    create all your own partitions and then it is saying only to make it what the
    distro itself would do. I do not see how it could be important. Rather it is
    only old advice for small hard drives on not to waste the journaling space.

    --
    Hodie quarto Idus Novembres MMVIII est
    -- The Ferric Webcaesar
    http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2

  20. Re: grub and /boot partition

    Grant wrote:
    > On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:42:58 +0100, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >
    >> Grant wrote:
    >>
    >>> Dare I show mount?
    >>>
    >>> root@pooh:~# mount
    >>> /dev/sda3 on / type reiserfs (rw)
    >>> proc on /proc type proc (rw)
    >>> sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw)
    >>> usbfs on /proc/bus/usb type usbfs (rw)
    >>> tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw)
    >>> deltree:/home/common on /home/common type nfs (rw,hard,intr,addr=192.168.1.1)

    >> I'm *amazed* that it's working properly for /boot.

    >
    > I started using reiserfs a few years ago when ext3 was unexpectedly locking
    > up a couple times a week. Had absolutely no problems with reiserfs3.



    You selected to do this, manually at install time, rather than using the
    distribution's default, didn't you? Was it your default, or did the *default*
    select a separate, ext3 /boot partition?

+ Reply to Thread