FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-21-2010, 09:54 AM
Ioannis Vranos
 
Default /boot filesystem

Default installations with a separate /boot partition use ext2. Why
don't they use ext3 or better ext4? Grub supports both of them.






--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www.cpp-software.net




--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 11-21-2010, 11:30 AM
Goh Lip
 
Default /boot filesystem

On Sunday 21,November,2010 06:54 PM, Ioannis Vranos wrote:
> Default installations with a separate /boot partition use ext2. Why
> don't they use ext3 or better ext4? Grub supports both of them.

Because it's not necessary.
Without any kernel, it will take about only 1 MB. Journaling would be a
waste of resources.

Regards - Goh Lip

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 11-22-2010, 02:55 AM
Tom H
 
Default /boot filesystem

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Goh Lip <g.lip@gmx.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 21,November,2010 06:54 PM, Ioannis Vranos wrote:
>>
>> Default installations with a separate /boot partition use ext2. Why
>> don't they use ext3 or better ext4? Grub supports both of them.
>
> Because it's not necessary.
>
> 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".

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 11-22-2010, 09:35 AM
Goh Lip
 
Default /boot filesystem

On Monday 22,November,2010 11:55 AM, Tom H wrote:
> 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.

Regards - Goh Lip




--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 11-22-2010, 12:43 PM
Ioannis Vranos
 
Default /boot filesystem

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?





--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www.cpp-software.net




--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 11-22-2010, 12:55 PM
Ioannis Vranos
 
Default /boot filesystem

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?





--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www.cpp-software.net





--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 11-22-2010, 01:15 PM
J
 
Default /boot filesystem

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 08:43, Ioannis Vranos
<cppdeveloper@ontelecoms.gr> 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 think he may have meant without "many" kernels, though with the 1MB
limit, i'm not sure... I could be very wrong there and am just
guessing :-)

> I do not think "very few write operations" is an argument too. And?

Maybe you should explain why "very few write operations" is not a
reasonable argument for not using a journaling FS? /boot rarely gets
written to. not wasting overhead on a journal for a partition that
does not see a lot of write actions seems a perfectly good excuse to
me.

> Why isn't ext4 used instead for example?

What answer are you looking for and why? you've gotten at least one
reasonable answer as to why... but you're asking in the wrong place.
If you really want to know, you need to find and ask the people who
make those decisions at the various distros. I'd dare say there are
no people, or very very few people on this list who can actually
answer that question with any sort of authority.

If it's theory you want, you've already gotten a good theoretical
answer. You could also consider that A: distros generally do NOT
create a separate /boot by default, B: it wasn't into fairly recently
that ext4 was supported by Grub. C: going with A: in most cases, you
have to explicitly create your own /boot partition if you want one, so
have at it and make it ext4 if you wish, it's your choice. You could
make format it in any format supported by grub, if you wished.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but you're asking the same question over
and over while saying that the answer you are getting is not a valid
argument. There are plenty of reasons, but as I said, you'll have to
ask the people who make those decisions for Ubuntu, Fedora, SLES,
RHEL, CentOS, Debian, Slackware, etc as to why they do or do not
create a separate /boot by default, and why they chose to use which
filesystem for it.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 11-22-2010, 01:17 PM
Goh Lip
 
Default /boot filesystem

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?

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 11-22-2010, 01:47 PM
Tom H
 
Default /boot filesystem

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Ioannis Vranos
<cppdeveloper@ontelecoms.gr> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 18:35 +0800, Goh Lip wrote:
>> On Monday 22,November,2010 11:55 AM, Tom H wrote:

>>> It's not just a question of size. There are very few write operations
>>> on "/boot".


> I do not think "very few write operations" is an argument too. And?

Do you understand what the purpose of journaling is?!


> Why isn't ext4 used instead for example?

You're free to choose to format "/boot" whichever way you want. If
you're unhappy with the default choice that the developers've made,
feel free to let them know.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 11-22-2010, 02:09 PM
Rashkae
 
Default /boot filesystem

On 10-11-22 09:17 AM, Goh Lip wrote:
>
> o ext3 = ext2 + journaling
> o /boot would NOT be mounted after boot-up
>

I suppose there's merrit to the idea of not mounting /boot, but wherever
I've seen a boot partition used, /boot is always included in the fstab
for mounting. Otherwise, you would need a whole level of scripting in
update utilities, like dpkg, update-initramfs and update-grub for them
to know they need to mount/unmount boot.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:03 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org