On Tuesday 12 April 2011 09:57:26 Dale wrote: > Peter Humphrey wrote: > > On Tuesday 12 April 2011 15:10:52 James wrote: > >> Stroller<stroller<at> stellar.eclipse.co.uk> writes: > >>> There's no need for extents on such a small partition, > >>> nor journalling (because you write to /boot so > >>> rarely, the likelihood of a power failure when you're > >>> doing so is minuscule). > >> > >> Yea, sure, but that's not the point. I just wanted to > >> use ext4 for everything. Not on this system, but often, > >> my boot partition is very active, as I copy many kernels > >> there for many different (arch)machines and different hardware > >> (HD, SSD, CF, SD...) I try to make the many systems I admin > >> as homogeneous as possible, hence the switch to ext4 > >> for boot. > > > > Nevertheless, if ext4 isn't working for you you should follow the advice > > you've been given and format /boot as ext2. All my boot partitions are > > ext2, regardless of which others are ext4 or reiserfs. > > Same here. I use ext3 and reiserfs, depending on what it is, but /boot > is always ext2. Why, it works well with grub and has for many many > years and most likely will for many years to come as well. > > As for making things the same, that my not always be a good idea > either. I put some things on reiserfs but some on ext3. It seams each > file system has its strengths and weaknesses. I read that portage, with > a lot of small files, does better on ext* file systems. So I put > portage on that. Most everything else is on reiserfs.
Where did you read that portage, with lots of small files, is best on ext*? I was under the impression that reiserfs has better performance with lots of smaller files. -- Joost
