> There are also some booting issues if you want to use reiserfs. Ehh, which? Some people who don't like reiser like to repeat this, that doesn't make it correct though. IIRC I've booted from reiser for as long as I've used reiser (kernel 2.2), no separate /boot either[1]. And for all of this time reiser was compiled as module: no booting issues.
There's no need any more to bother with /boot. My '99 mobo doesn't need it. > fill the root filesystem. I wouldn't bother with /boot, but *would* use a > separate / partition with ext2/3. Yes, good idea to have a separate /. No reason though to make it ext2/3 any more than making it any other filesystem (ok, except iso ;). Keep the size of / within reason and you won't have a bios problem. Actually, don't use ext2 on anything above 1GB, or you're fscked forever. This could be a practical issue in favour of one or another filesystem - how long does a fsck take after a sudden powercut? Less than 5 seconds on 350G of disk with reiser3. Anybody got numbers for other fs? Volker [1] Actually I can't remember about the 486. -- Volker Kuhlmann is possibly list0570 with the domain in header http://volker.dnsalias.net/ Please do not CC list postings to me.
