On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 08:58 -0600, Dan McGee wrote:
>
> This personally seems like the better fix to the issue, rather than
> blame the e2fsprogs developers for changing a default that has been
> supported by kernel filesystem drivers since 2.6.10.
>
> If we can get sufficient testing on this th
On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 05:32:49PM +0200, Roman Kyrylych wrote:
> 2008/2/9, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Ahh, I did forget that little issue too.
> >
> > If anyone is more informed on FS issues than I, what is the benefit of
> > larger inode sizes?
> >
>
> Less number of inodes per file?
>
Dan McGee schrieb:
>> I checked the patch into CVS. If it is okay, I can rebuild grub with
>> this patch and check it into testing. Opinions?
>
> This personally seems like the better fix to the issue, rather than
> blame the e2fsprogs developers for changing a default that has been
> supported by
2008/2/9, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ahh, I did forget that little issue too.
>
> If anyone is more informed on FS issues than I, what is the benefit of
> larger inode sizes?
>
Less number of inodes per file?
--
Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On Feb 9, 2008 9:06 AM, Tobias Powalowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Samstag, 9. Februar 2008 schrieb Dan McGee:
>
> > On Feb 9, 2008 3:30 AM, Thomas Bächler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Xavier schrieb:
> > > > That's funny, my first feeling when I read about that issue was :
> > > > Why t
Am Samstag, 9. Februar 2008 schrieb Dan McGee:
> On Feb 9, 2008 3:30 AM, Thomas Bächler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Xavier schrieb:
> > > That's funny, my first feeling when I read about that issue was :
> > > Why the hell did those developers put such stupid limitation? :)
> > > (or: did not re
On Feb 9, 2008 3:30 AM, Thomas Bächler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Xavier schrieb:
> > That's funny, my first feeling when I read about that issue was :
> > Why the hell did those developers put such stupid limitation? :)
> > (or: did not remove)
> >
> > Well, my first result on google looks inter
Thomas Bächler wrote:
I checked the patch into CVS. If it is okay, I can rebuild grub with
this patch and check it into testing. Opinions?
I tested it now, and it looks ok.
I was still be able to boot my current ext2 partition, inode size 128
with it.
Then I built a ext3 partition, inode siz
Xavier schrieb:
> That's funny, my first feeling when I read about that issue was :
> Why the hell did those developers put such stupid limitation? :)
> (or: did not remove)
>
> Well, my first result on google looks interesting :
> http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20080130.140155.866d3ad
Roman Kyrylych wrote:
2008/2/9, Jan de Groot<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Creating a boot filesystem with the default settings for mke2fs will
render grub useless because grub can't read partitions created with it.
The issue is that the inode size is 256 by default, which is compatible
with kernel 2.6.1
2008/2/9, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Creating a boot filesystem with the default settings for mke2fs will
> render grub useless because grub can't read partitions created with it.
>
> The issue is that the inode size is 256 by default, which is compatible
> with kernel 2.6.10 and higher. O
Creating a boot filesystem with the default settings for mke2fs will
render grub useless because grub can't read partitions created with it.
The issue is that the inode size is 256 by default, which is compatible
with kernel 2.6.10 and higher. Older kernels, and also grub won't work
with anything
12 matches
Mail list logo
