Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le jeudi 12 mai 2005 à 18:32 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
You said it: there is a cache. After the first access, the directory
will be in the cache. Making all of this a purely imaginary problem.
The whole directory is in the cache? I
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 11:47:31AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[snip]
But the problem remains that you have to look at each dire entry in
unhashed ext2/3, fat or minix.
Ehrm, I don't think having /usr/lib on a fat FS is an option anyway,
considering its lacking file ownership/permission
[David Weinehall]
Ehrm, I don't think having /usr/lib on a fat FS is an option anyway,
considering its lacking file ownership/permission support and its
filename munging...
I should think the lack of symlink support is the real problem.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas sbin is for things that should be in root's path. The
Thomas executables in question are ones that shouldn't be in
Thomas anyone's path. (The standard example is programs started
Thomas only by inetd.)
Why not put
Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
/bin/mount foo:whatever /bin
I was considering commenting on this, I think if you want to start
going down this track it would be simpler to write/adapt a script that
automatically creates an initramfs.
Yes, this is surely true. When I had the need
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 11:00:09AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't personally care on /usr/lib vs. /usr/libexec, except that the idea
of going through and changing all the packages in Debian really doesn't
appeal to me (and however easily
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Most applications I've seen that use libexec make it entirely trivial
to move it to /usr/lib: ./configure --libexecdir=/usr/lib. (I don't
think apps that don't do this, or something like it, should be a major
consideration here--take apps out of the
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas We've been told that /usr is necessary to allow network
Thomas sharing. Of course, you can network share any directory,
Thomas not just /usr. If you want executables to be shared, then
Thomas share /bin. It's not a
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 12:14:19AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I'm just not seeing any benefits that are worth bloating /usr.
Wait, are you serious? The bloat of /usr/lib having thousands of
files doesn't bother you, but the two dozen in /usr is bothersome?
Huh? Using libexec
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Most packages had files in /usr/doc. Most packages do not have files in
/usr/lib at all, and most of those that do, wouldn't need to be changed.
Changing from /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc was a fairly simple and
straightforward change in a whole
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Wait, are you serious? The bloat of /usr/lib having thousands of
files doesn't bother you, but the two dozen in /usr is bothersome?
We dont talk about thousands, on a edium sized system it is a few hundred
directories and up to thousand files/symlinks.
Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Wait, are you serious? The bloat of /usr/lib having thousands of
files doesn't bother you, but the two dozen in /usr is bothersome?
We dont talk about thousands, on a edium sized system it is a few hundred
Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas We've been told that /usr is necessary to allow network
Thomas sharing. Of course, you can network share any directory,
Thomas not just /usr. If you want executables to be shared,
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For me, this is a closed issue until you change the FHS. (Something that
I don't think is very likely to happen, but best of luck to you.)
Since the FHS tries to be responsive to what different distributions
want, this doesn't help in the question:
[Thomas Bushnell BSG]
Um:
/bin/mount foo:whatever /bin
That's a huge administrative hassle. Not only do you have to figure
out what programs and libraries /bin/mount depends on so you can make
sure they're on your real root partition, but the packaging system
doesn't - and shouldn't - do
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 07:21:26AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For me, this is a closed issue until you change the FHS. (Something that
I don't think is very likely to happen, but best of luck to you.)
Since the FHS tries to be responsive to
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 10:02:30AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
I should mention that I'm still waiting for your benchmark
results on how a drastic reduction in /usr/lib size speeds up the
runtime linker. On *any* filesystem, O(n)-lookups or not.
(In case you missed it, I explained how to
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 03:38:33AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
This just seems like change for the sake of change, with trivial benefits,
if any.
I agree, and I admit to not having read this whole thread, but has anyone
made a serious argument as to why we need yet another directory for
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Thomas Bushnell BSG]
Um:
/bin/mount foo:whatever /bin
That's a huge administrative hassle. Not only do you have to figure
out what programs and libraries /bin/mount depends on so you can make
sure they're on your real root partition, but the
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 03:38:33AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
This just seems like change for the sake of change, with trivial benefits,
if any.
I agree, and I admit to not having read this whole thread, but has anyone
made a serious argument as to
That's a huge administrative hassle. Not only do you have to figure
out what programs and libraries /bin/mount depends on so you can make
sure they're on your real root partition, but the packaging system
doesn't - and shouldn't - do anything to help you keep the two copies
of /bin in
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. Debian is figuring it out. My whole point is that you've shifted
the job of doing so to the site admin. If you are expecting dpkg to
take on the responsibility for peeking under people's mounted /bin
directories and installing/upgrading things
Peter == Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Peter [Thomas Bushnell BSG]
Um:
/bin/mount foo:whatever /bin
I was considering commenting on this, I think if you want to start
going down this track it would be simpler to write/adapt a script that
automatically creates an
from upstream. Most of the cost of
managing upgrades from upstream and the like is re-porting all those
little niggling bits.
I don't personally care on /usr/lib vs. /usr/libexec, except that the idea
of going through and changing all the packages in Debian really doesn't
appeal to me
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't personally care on /usr/lib vs. /usr/libexec, except that the idea
of going through and changing all the packages in Debian really doesn't
appeal to me (and however easily spread that cost, it's a lot of work --
it's more work than the /usr/doc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
I do believe you've missed the point. Splitting /usr from / helps in
a teeny percentage of cases, and most of the cases where it helps
that have been mentioned
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do believe you've missed the point. Splitting /usr from / helps in a
teeny percentage of cases, and most of the cases where it helps that
have been mentioned
On May 13, 2005, at 11:28, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
You said it yourself. Even if your 256MB machine were typical (it's
not), the less cache memory you use to cache dentries of /usr/lib,
the better (more memory for your apps, or to cache other, more
useful stuff).
If you suspect that
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On May 13, 2005, at 11:28, Humberto Massa Guimares wrote:
You said it yourself. Even if your 256MB machine were typical (it's
not), the less cache memory you use to cache dentries of /usr/lib,
the better (more memory for your apps, or to cache
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do believe you've missed the point. Splitting /usr from / helps in a
teeny percentage of cases, and most of the cases where it helps that
have been mentioned here, it actually doesn't. Yet, splitting /usr/lib,
which is grotesquely huge and
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The difference being that Debian has already split /usr from / and
therefore is only paying the marginal cost of maintaining it, whereas
Debian has not split /usr/lib from /usr/libexec and would have to pay the
(far larger) initial cost of moving
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I do believe you've missed the point. Splitting /usr from / helps in
a teeny percentage of cases, and most of the cases where it helps
that have been mentioned here, it actually doesn't.
Well, I think it helps in the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
I do believe you've missed the point. Splitting /usr from / helps in
a teeny percentage of cases, and most of the cases where it helps
that have been mentioned here, it actually doesn't. Yet, splitting
/usr/lib, which is grotesquely huge and hard to
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I do believe you've missed the point. Splitting /usr from / helps in
a teeny percentage of cases, and most of the cases where it helps
that have been mentioned here, it actually doesn't.
Well, I think it helps in the case of network mounting it; it is easier
to mount a
Le jeudi 12 mai 2005 à 18:32 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
You said it: there is a cache. After the first access, the directory
will be in the cache. Making all of this a purely imaginary problem.
The whole directory is in the cache? I don't think so. Remember,
that in between
Josselin:
Le jeudi 12 mai 2005 à 18:32 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
You said it: there is a cache. After the first access, the directory
will be in the cache. Making all of this a purely imaginary problem.
The whole directory is in the cache? I don't think so. Remember,
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which doesn't? Minix maybe. Even ext2/3 has hashes for dir if you
format it that way.
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Is this the Debian default for installation?
Yes, it is. I just checked and every install I've done turned this on without
my
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le mercredi 11 mai 2005 13:35 -0300, Humberto Massa a crit :
Imagine that, to load Konqui, you have to go 200 times to the disk (ok,
cache, but...), each of them reading the 1 entries I have in
/usr/lib, some of them twice or three times, to
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What does the default Debian install do?
Debian seems to use ext3 without directory indexing by default.
Which is a sane choice as directory indexing on ext3 still seems to
be not fully mature.
And as mentioned in another
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 05:50, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
On fedora-devel
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 05:50, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would it be desirable to have arch-os
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
default? A: Last time I installed Debian (15 days ago), it asked me if
I wanted my partition ext3, xfs, or reiserfs IIRC; I chose reiserfs,
and I am pretty
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What does the default Debian install do?
Debian seems to use ext3 without directory indexing by default.
Which is a sane choice as directory indexing on ext3 still seems to
be
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would you agree that that bug should be fixed (in Etch), irrespective
of whether the FHS is also changed to split /usr/lib?
I'm not expert enough on the other factors that might be relevant to
say.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What does the default Debian install do?
Debian seems to use ext3 without directory indexing by default.
Which is a sane choice as directory
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What does the default Debian install do?
Debian seems to use ext3 without directory indexing by default.
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 17:21, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
BUt according to Christoph Hellwig, the ext3 which is the default is
used without directory indexing, which returns you to O(n).
You have yet to present any numbers which show there is a problem here.
Can we please discuss real world
Will Newton wrote:
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 17:21, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
BUt according to Christoph Hellwig, the ext3 which is the default is
used without directory indexing, which returns you to O(n).
You have yet to present any numbers which show there is a problem here.
Can we
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 17:35, Humberto Massa wrote:
This is not an imaginary problem, after all, in principle.
Let's see, as I wrote before, my installation has *thousands* of files
in /usr/lib and, in some filesystems, this can add up to a very large
time (and ab-use of dentry cache
[Humberto Massa]
As I said before, as far as I recall, the Debian installer suggested
me only filesystems that have O(1) [O(log n) worst case] directory
lookup. I chose reiserfs, but the installer IIRC suggested ext3 and
xfs as alternatives.
As Christoph (I think) said, Debian creates ext3
Le mercredi 11 mai 2005 à 13:35 -0300, Humberto Massa a écrit :
Imagine that, to load Konqui, you have to go 200 times to the disk (ok,
cache, but...), each of them reading the 1 entries I have in
/usr/lib, some of them twice or three times, to follow the symlinks.
This is a real
Peter Samuelson wrote:
(...)
HOWEVER
This is a very silly thing to argue about without benchmarks. Those
who care about this - yes, Thomas, I mean you - should get numbers.
Here's how:
(steps 1-6)
You are 100% right and I stand corrected.
--
HTH,
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 05:42:31AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
- / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
problems for /boot.
Why is that?
Missing bootloader support.
- a larger FS has more chance of failing so you risk having a fully
broken system more often
Once upon a time GOMBAS Gabor said...
$ df -h
FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/hda5 99M 75M 19M 80% /
[...]
$ du -sh /etc/gconf
26M /etc/gconf
That's 1/3 of my root fs. It's damn too much.
I discovered this a while ago and learned that
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
- / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
problems for /boot.
Why is that?
Missing bootloader support.
the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 08:38:02AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Martin Waitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it exists.
It reduces search times in libraries, which is important.
We do not have that bug, so it's not important to
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
semantic significance at all), why separate
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That doesn't make sense. If you get rid of the /usr vs /
distinction,
then there is no before /usr is mounted.
But then you have a minimum 1-5GB /. That sucks.
Why, exactly? I know people think
Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 10:21 +0200, GOMBAS Gabor a écrit :
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 05:42:31AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
- / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
problems for /boot.
Why is that?
Missing bootloader support.
Which bootloader doesn't
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 02:18, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and
having the same directory names used across distributions provides real
benefits (copying config files
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 10:36, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
problems for /boot.
I believe that there are LILO patches for /boot on LVM. There's no reason why
GRUB and other boot loaders couldn't be updated in
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
(I assume that /boot is on /. If not, the following still applies to
/boot.)
Well, grub _does_ access the filesystem
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We do not have that bug, so it's not important to us.
Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
better than linear search time for open, and are they used by a
default Debian install?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What do you think are the original reasons / needed to be small?
I know what they are. PDP-11 boot loaders couldn't access long block
addresses. This was copied into 32V on the Vax, where it entered
4BSD.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 00:55, GOMBAS Gabor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
(I assume that /boot is on /. If not, the
GOMBAS Gabor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
(I assume that /boot is on /. If not, the following still applies to
Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
- / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
problems for /boot.
Why is that?
Lvm has its backup data in /etc by default. If you ever need it you
are screwed with / on lvm. Also snapshots
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lvm has its backup data in /etc by default. If you ever need it you
are screwed with / on lvm. Also snapshots and pvmove don't work
(deadlock).
raid0/5 don't have support in the bootloaders.
reiserfs/xfs miss support in bootloaders or their
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 10:21 +0200, GOMBAS Gabor a écrit :
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 05:42:31AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
- / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
problems for /boot.
Why is that?
Missing
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 02:18, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and
having the same directory names used across distributions
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 10:36, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
problems for /boot.
I believe that there are LILO patches for /boot on LVM. There's no reason
why
GRUB
Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 17:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
Almost all the schemas were already moved out to /usr/share. We plan to
move the defaults directory structure to /var/lib/gconf after the
release - at least, the defaults brought by package; we have to keep a
defaults
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:39, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 10:36, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
problems for /boot.
I
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We do not have that bug, so it's not important to us.
Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
better than linear search time for open, and are they used by a
default Debian install?
These
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
On fedora-devel Bill Nottingham suggested having /usr/lib vs /usr/lib64 for
programs that care about such things and /usr/libexec for programs
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
You've missed the point. Split / and /boot, that makes sense if it's
necessary. Splitting / and /usr does not make sense.
Sure it does. Especially if you want / to be in a Flash disk and /usr to
be somewhere else in the network.
HTH
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
better than linear search time for open,
reiserfs, ext2/3 (with dir_index), and probably others.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix.
ext2 doesn't.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix.
ext2 doesn't.
With dir_index, yes it does.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:21:50PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
ext2 doesn't.
With dir_index, yes it does.
If you want to forward port a three year old patch full of bugs and
incompatible to the dir_index used in ext3 - all luck to you.
All debian kernel-image packages don't have it for
GOMBAS Gabor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
(I assume that /boot is on /. If not, the following still applies to
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 17:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
Almost all the schemas were already moved out to /usr/share. We plan to
move the defaults directory structure to /var/lib/gconf after the
release - at least, the defaults brought
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix.
ext2 doesn't.
Convert it to utilize directory hashing. The
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:39, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/ on lvm is a major pain in case of error and if you already need a
seperate / partition adding another for /boot is a bit stupid.
/ on LVM allows for snapshot backups
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
On fedora-devel Bill Nottingham suggested having /usr/lib vs /usr/lib64 for
programs that care about
Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 21:37 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 17:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
Almost all the schemas were already moved out to /usr/share. We plan to
move the defaults directory structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Waitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
hoi :)
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:45:32PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
Should we change some of these to /usr/libexec?
well, it would be against the FHS, I think.
The BSDs use libexec but I don't really
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 08:12:38AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We do not have that bug, so it's not important to us.
Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
better than linear search time for open, and are they
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
better than linear search time for open, and are they used by a
default Debian install?
/etc/ld.so.cache
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
No lvm backup data available in case of superblock corruption. Bad
idea. No booting with init=/bin/sh to patch things back together as /
can't be mounted. Bad idea again.
You can store the backup wherever you like, and an emergency boot via usb
stick,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
For sharing the /usr tree among multiple machines with different
architectures (I guess).
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Thomas == Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas You've missed the point. Split / and /boot, that makes
Thomas sense if it's necessary. Splitting / and /usr does not
Thomas make sense.
Bad example.
A better example might be if you want to mount /usr via NFS or some
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
default? A: Last time I installed Debian (15 days ago), it asked me if
I wanted my partition ext3, xfs, or reiserfs IIRC; I chose reiserfs,
and I am pretty sure finding a file in a
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix.
ext2 doesn't.
Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
better than linear search time for open, and are they used by a
default Debian install?
/etc/ld.so.cache
Um, no. ld.so.cache gives you the
Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
No lvm backup data available in case of superblock corruption. Bad
idea. No booting with init=/bin/sh to patch things back together as /
can't be mounted. Bad idea again.
You can store the backup wherever you
Thomas Bushnell BSG dijo [Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:08:57PM -0700]:
If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
semantic significance at all), why separate /lib from /etc?
I don't see a semantic
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
How many directory entries do you think fit in a block?
If I see this right I habe 80blocks for 756 entries:
# ls -a | wc -l
756
# ls -lsd
80 drwxr-xr-x 122 root root 57344 May 10 06:34 ./
Most likely in dache. Still a lot to traverse.
Ext2 direntry
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
default? A: Last time I installed Debian (15 days ago), it asked me if
I wanted my partition ext3, xfs, or reiserfs IIRC; I chose
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
