[gentoo-dev] grub reiser4

[gentoo-dev] grub reiser4

[Chris Bainbridge]

Hi,

I was wondering if there's any chance of having the reiser4 patch for
grub (or even the whole grub-reiser4 distfile) added to the ebuild.
There are various bugs where people have posted patches for 0.96x
ebuilds which were never added and the bugs have been WONTFIXed or
left dangling. I've been using grub+reiser4 for about 9 months now
with no problems. The last reason I heard it wouldn't be added was
that no kernels in portage support it; I believe that's not true
anymore, at least mm-sources has reiser4.

Thanks,
Chris

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] grub reiser4

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 29 September 2005 02:10 pm, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> I was wondering if there's any chance of having the reiser4 patch for
> grub (or even the whole grub-reiser4 distfile) added to the ebuild.
> There are various bugs where people have posted patches for 0.96x
> ebuilds which were never added and the bugs have been WONTFIXed or
> left dangling. I've been using grub+reiser4 for about 9 months now
> with no problems. The last reason I heard it wouldn't be added was
> that no kernels in portage support it; I believe that's not true
> anymore, at least mm-sources has reiser4.

i'll ask a few devs how they feel about it before i commit it
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] grub reiser4

[Bjarke Istrup Pedersen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I don't think it will happend before it gets added to the vanilla
kernel, but not sure.

Chris Bainbridge skrev:
> Hi,
> 
> I was wondering if there's any chance of having the reiser4 patch for
> grub (or even the whole grub-reiser4 distfile) added to the ebuild.
> There are various bugs where people have posted patches for 0.96x
> ebuilds which were never added and the bugs have been WONTFIXed or
> left dangling. I've been using grub+reiser4 for about 9 months now
> with no problems. The last reason I heard it wouldn't be added was
> that no kernels in portage support it; I believe that's not true
> anymore, at least mm-sources has reiser4.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDPDTAO+Ewtpi9rLERAlcTAJ4wkJLXHgrGQpxbMz6Vw2Jd+rzY/ACcCfcm
8LKt48wJZuk8NnzjE0b29H4=
=93vB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: grub reiser4

[R Hill]

Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I was wondering if there's any chance of having the reiser4 patch for
> grub (or even the whole grub-reiser4 distfile) added to the ebuild.
> There are various bugs where people have posted patches for 0.96x
> ebuilds which were never added and the bugs have been WONTFIXed or
> left dangling. I've been using grub+reiser4 for about 9 months now
> with no problems. The last reason I heard it wouldn't be added was
> that no kernels in portage support it; I believe that's not true
> anymore, at least mm-sources has reiser4.

The grub maintainer's stance was that reiser 4 support would not be 
included in grub until it was included in gentoo-sources, not any kernel 
in portage.  The grub maintainer has been AWOL for the last 9 months or 
so however, so i guess it's now up to the base-system herd.  I was under 
the impression that feature-adding patches should be sent upstream.

I still think it's retarded to have a reiser 4 boot partition, but 
whatever stirs your pot. ;P

--de.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: grub reiser4

[Chris Bainbridge]

On 02/10/05, R Hill <dirtyepic.sk@gmail.com> wrote:
> The grub maintainer's stance was that reiser 4 support would not be
> included in grub until it was included in gentoo-sources, not any kernel
> in portage.  The grub maintainer has been AWOL for the last 9 months or
> so however, so i guess it's now up to the base-system herd.  I was under
> the impression that feature-adding patches should be sent upstream.
>
> I still think it's retarded to have a reiser 4 boot partition, but
> whatever stirs your pot. ;P

It makes sense if you're actually using reiser4 for everything else.
Why bloat your kernel with an extra FS just for /boot?

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: grub reiser4

[Alec Warner]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On 02/10/05, R Hill <dirtyepic.sk@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>The grub maintainer's stance was that reiser 4 support would not be
>>included in grub until it was included in gentoo-sources, not any kernel
>>in portage.  The grub maintainer has been AWOL for the last 9 months or
>>so however, so i guess it's now up to the base-system herd.  I was under
>>the impression that feature-adding patches should be sent upstream.
>>
>>I still think it's retarded to have a reiser 4 boot partition, but
>>whatever stirs your pot. ;P
> 
> 
> It makes sense if you're actually using reiser4 for everything else.
> Why bloat your kernel with an extra FS just for /boot?
> 

Because most people want a tried and true fs on /boot, because if that
tanks your system doesn't boot.  I'm not trying to bash reiser here, I
still use ext2 on /boot even if xfs is my main fs of choice for this reason.

Alec Warner (antarus)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
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=DXSo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: grub reiser4

[Chris Bainbridge]

On 02/10/05, Alec Warner <warnera6@egr.msu.edu> wrote:
> Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > On 02/10/05, R Hill <dirtyepic.sk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>I still think it's retarded to have a reiser 4 boot partition, but
> >>whatever stirs your pot. ;P
> >
> > It makes sense if you're actually using reiser4 for everything else.
> > Why bloat your kernel with an extra FS just for /boot?
>
> Because most people want a tried and true fs on /boot, because if that
> tanks your system doesn't boot.  I'm not trying to bash reiser here, I
> still use ext2 on /boot even if xfs is my main fs of choice for this reason.

Being able to boot a kernel isn't much use without a root fs. If I
can't boot, I have a livecd sitting on my desk. I guess if I had a
ramdisk on /boot with a shell and some recovery tools then I might
care, but I don't.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: grub reiser4

[Dan Meltzer]

On 10/2/05, Chris Bainbridge <chris.bainbridge@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/10/05, Alec Warner <warnera6@egr.msu.edu> wrote:
> > Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > > On 02/10/05, R Hill <dirtyepic.sk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>I still think it's retarded to have a reiser 4 boot partition, but
> > >>whatever stirs your pot. ;P
> > >
> > > It makes sense if you're actually using reiser4 for everything else.
> > > Why bloat your kernel with an extra FS just for /boot?
In addition, why bloat your fs by having a journaled filesystem for
essentially static files?
> >
> > Because most people want a tried and true fs on /boot, because if that
> > tanks your system doesn't boot.  I'm not trying to bash reiser here, I
> > still use ext2 on /boot even if xfs is my main fs of choice for this reason.
>
> Being able to boot a kernel isn't much use without a root fs. If I
> can't boot, I have a livecd sitting on my desk. I guess if I had a
> ramdisk on /boot with a shell and some recovery tools then I might
> care, but I don't.
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: grub reiser4

[Chris Bainbridge]

On 02/10/05, Dan Meltzer <parallelgrapefruit@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/2/05, Chris Bainbridge <chris.bainbridge@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 02/10/05, Alec Warner <warnera6@egr.msu.edu> wrote:
> > > Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > > > On 02/10/05, R Hill <dirtyepic.sk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>I still think it's retarded to have a reiser 4 boot partition, but
> > > >>whatever stirs your pot. ;P
> > > >
> > > > It makes sense if you're actually using reiser4 for everything else.
> > > > Why bloat your kernel with an extra FS just for /boot?
> In addition, why bloat your fs by having a journaled filesystem for
> essentially static files?

Because it's easier to have a single fs for / than have multiple
partitions, and try to isolate all of the things that are "essentially
static" and move them over to unjournalled file systems. Journalling
operations on /boot are responsible for filling a very, very small
percentage of my hard disk.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: grub reiser4

[Duncan]

Chris Bainbridge posted <623652d50510021043g6a4a9fd6n@mail.gmail.com>,
excerpted below,  on Sun, 02 Oct 2005 17:43:04 +0000:

> On 02/10/05, Dan Meltzer <parallelgrapefruit@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/2/05, Chris Bainbridge <chris.bainbridge@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 02/10/05, Alec Warner <warnera6@egr.msu.edu> wrote:
>> > > Chris Bainbridge wrote:
>> > > > On 02/10/05, R Hill <dirtyepic.sk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >>I still think it's retarded to have a reiser 4 boot partition, but
>> > > >>whatever stirs your pot. ;P
>> > > >
>> > > > It makes sense if you're actually using reiser4 for everything
>> > > > else. Why bloat your kernel with an extra FS just for /boot?
>> In addition, why bloat your fs by having a journaled filesystem for
>> essentially static files?
> 
> Because it's easier to have a single fs for / than have multiple
> partitions, and try to isolate all of the things that are "essentially
> static" and move them over to unjournalled file systems. Journalling
> operations on /boot are responsible for filling a very, very small
> percentage of my hard disk.

I'm doing this with reiserfs (3) ATM.  100% reiserfs system, fat and ext2
as kernel modules that I load only in the rare event I'm going to access a
floppy.  I have 20 partitions, including  /boot and some others that are
normally static, and /tmp and my portage tree and source partitions that
are temporary or redownloadable so they really don't need journalled. 
However, the disk is some 250 GB, out of which well over 100 GB remains
entirely unformatted at this point, so journal space isn't an issue, and
it's simply less bother keeping everything on reiserfs, even on partitions
where the default journal is a rather large portion of the entire
partition, than otherwise.

Note that reiser4 is "wandering journal".  As I understand it, it doesn't
set up a dedicated journal space, but rather, journals on the fly, by
rewriting a file then cascading the metadata entries up the (duplicated)
tree branch until it reaches the root entry, at  which point the commit
goes final as the old metadata tree branch is discarded and the new one
takes effect. This isn't journalling, but rather, atomic metadata entry.
Thus, there *IS* no journal per se, simply half finished commits that
haven't gotten all the way up the tree to the root entry yet.  The change
is either fully committed or not committed at all, so unless the crash
occurs at the exact moment the root entry itself is being updated (and I
believe there's a special case for it, accounting for that  very
possibility), there's simply nothing to journal.  Half-written commits
that didn't fully cascade all the way to the top will simply be pruned in
the event of recovery. The system is fully atomic, no journal necessary.

Thus (unless I've misunderstood what I've read of reiser4), journal space
isn't an issue with reiser4.  It's an atomic transaction system, rather
than a journal.

That's also one of the reasons why copy method affects access time.  Untar
a tarball not created on reiser4 onto a reiser4 system, and those files
won't be laid out for optimum access efficiency. That was one of the
points Hans made in some of the benchmarking attempts. I don't quite
understand the implications here, but apparently, taking the newly
expanded files, copying (not moving) them elsewhere on the reiser4 system,
deleting the old copy, then copying them back (if necessary), will
reoptimize the layout into reiser4-access-optimized.  Alternatively,
running the repacker reoptimizes the entire fs, as well.

Obviously, I've been following reiser4 with some interest, altho I've
stuck with reiser3 to this point.  (reiser4 has been unstable on amd64,
I've been told.)  That may change in the next few months, however, as I'll
probably get a new disk (I've lots of space left, but this one has some
badblocks due to overheating during an A/C malfunction) and am considering
taking the opportunity to transfer to reiser4.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] grub reiser4

[Mike Doty]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mike Frysinger wrote:
| On Thursday 29 September 2005 02:10 pm, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
|
|>I was wondering if there's any chance of having the reiser4 patch for
|>grub (or even the whole grub-reiser4 distfile) added to the ebuild.
|>There are various bugs where people have posted patches for 0.96x
|>ebuilds which were never added and the bugs have been WONTFIXed or
|>left dangling. I've been using grub+reiser4 for about 9 months now
|>with no problems. The last reason I heard it wouldn't be added was
|>that no kernels in portage support it; I believe that's not true
|>anymore, at least mm-sources has reiser4.
|
|
| i'll ask a few devs how they feel about it before i commit it
| -mike
I'd prefer if the patch was left out for amd64 users, or included via a
use flag.  reiser4 isn't yet stable or proven on amd64.

- --
=======================================================
Mike Doty                           kingtaco@gentoo.org
Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead         PGP Key: 0xA797C7A7
Gentoo Developer Relations
~                 ===GPG Fingerprint===
~   0094 7F06 913E 78D6 F1BB  06BA D0AD D125 A797 C7A7
=======================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDQKwe0K3RJaeXx6cRAj01AKCKpJfVT5FM1bJFgbu4jpgXbuiErwCeI8hk
cb7WM663LziKx0ME95oqWr0=
=zfvZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] grub reiser4

[Chris Bainbridge]

On 03/10/05, Mike Doty <kingtaco@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I'd prefer if the patch was left out for amd64 users, or included via a
> use flag.  reiser4 isn't yet stable or proven on amd64.

A quick search found this quote: "The topic in channel #gentoo-amd64
on irc.freenode.net has said "Reiser4 is evil" for more than a year."

However http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_AMD_64 and the forum threads it
links to seem to suggest that people are successfully using reiser4 on
amd64 with recent kernels?

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] grub reiser4

[Luis Medinas]

On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 10:10 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On 03/10/05, Mike Doty <kingtaco@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > I'd prefer if the patch was left out for amd64 users, or included via a
> > use flag.  reiser4 isn't yet stable or proven on amd64.
> 
> A quick search found this quote: "The topic in channel #gentoo-amd64
> on irc.freenode.net has said "Reiser4 is evil" for more than a year."
> 
> However http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_AMD_64 and the forum threads it
> links to seem to suggest that people are successfully using reiser4 on
> amd64 with recent kernels?
> 
Yes it's true because reiser4 isn't ready for AMD64 atm. There are a
couple of users that tried reiser4 and they got nothing more than data
corruption because reiser4 is unstable. 
For somehow reiser4 isn't in the stable kernel.

-- 
Luis Medinas <metalgod@gentoo.org>
http://dev.gentoo.org/~metalgod
Gentoo Linux Developer: AMD64,Printing,Media-Optical

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: grub reiser4

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1154 bytes --]

On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 10:02 +0000, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On 02/10/05, R Hill <dirtyepic.sk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The grub maintainer's stance was that reiser 4 support would not be
> > included in grub until it was included in gentoo-sources, not any kernel
> > in portage.  The grub maintainer has been AWOL for the last 9 months or
> > so however, so i guess it's now up to the base-system herd.  I was under
> > the impression that feature-adding patches should be sent upstream.
> >
> > I still think it's retarded to have a reiser 4 boot partition, but
> > whatever stirs your pot. ;P
> 
> It makes sense if you're actually using reiser4 for everything else.
> Why bloat your kernel with an extra FS just for /boot?

The space added to a kernel for ext2 is *much* less than the overhead of
using a journaling file system for /boot.  You're wasting exponentially
more space using reiser on /boot.  The same would be true if you were
using ext3, which is why you always see us suggesting using ext2 for
boot.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: grub reiser4

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1251 bytes --]

On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 17:43 +0000, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On 02/10/05, Dan Meltzer <parallelgrapefruit@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/2/05, Chris Bainbridge <chris.bainbridge@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 02/10/05, Alec Warner <warnera6@egr.msu.edu> wrote:
> > > > Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > > > > On 02/10/05, R Hill <dirtyepic.sk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>I still think it's retarded to have a reiser 4 boot partition, but
> > > > >>whatever stirs your pot. ;P
> > > > >
> > > > > It makes sense if you're actually using reiser4 for everything else.
> > > > > Why bloat your kernel with an extra FS just for /boot?
> > In addition, why bloat your fs by having a journaled filesystem for
> > essentially static files?
> 
> Because it's easier to have a single fs for / than have multiple
> partitions, and try to isolate all of the things that are "essentially
> static" and move them over to unjournalled file systems. Journalling
> operations on /boot are responsible for filling a very, very small
> percentage of my hard disk.

Which is still much larger than the space needed for the ext2 driver.
*grin*

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] grub reiser4

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1868 bytes --]

On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 22:57 -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> | On Thursday 29 September 2005 02:10 pm, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> |
> |>I was wondering if there's any chance of having the reiser4 patch for
> |>grub (or even the whole grub-reiser4 distfile) added to the ebuild.
> |>There are various bugs where people have posted patches for 0.96x
> |>ebuilds which were never added and the bugs have been WONTFIXed or
> |>left dangling. I've been using grub+reiser4 for about 9 months now
> |>with no problems. The last reason I heard it wouldn't be added was
> |>that no kernels in portage support it; I believe that's not true
> |>anymore, at least mm-sources has reiser4.
> |
> |
> | i'll ask a few devs how they feel about it before i commit it
> | -mike

> I'd prefer if the patch was left out for amd64 users, or included via a
> use flag.  reiser4 isn't yet stable or proven on amd64.

Honestly no matter what your opinion of resier4 is, this patch needs to
really be added.  I see that amd64 has mm-sources in portage, which is a
kernel from kernel.org, and it has ~amd64 KEYWORDS.  The argument that
we have always had was that reiser4 was not included in a kernel.org
kernel.  This is no longer true.  Now, I can understand not *supporting*
it until it hits vanilla, but we shouldn't deny adding patches that
resolve issues with the FS or packages that interact with the FS just
because we dislike it or don't deem the FS stable.  I'd say to add the
patch to grub, and if a user hoses up their system, well... they're
knowingly running a very experimental kernel and an arguable file
system.... they can pick up the pieces themselves.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] grub reiser4

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2099 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 10:10 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On 03/10/05, Mike Doty <kingtaco@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > I'd prefer if the patch was left out for amd64 users, or included via a
> > use flag.  reiser4 isn't yet stable or proven on amd64.
> 
> A quick search found this quote: "The topic in channel #gentoo-amd64
> on irc.freenode.net has said "Reiser4 is evil" for more than a year."
> 
> However http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_AMD_64 and the forum threads it
> links to seem to suggest that people are successfully using reiser4 on
> amd64 with recent kernels?

The gentoo-wiki.com site is not an official Gentoo site.  Anything
written there can't be considered factual or accurate, and definitely
doesn't reflect on official Gentoo stance on anything, except where
quoted directly from a gentoo.org site (other than the forums, and
probably not planet or universe, either).  That being said, it's usually
correct on things.  The forums has had reports of people using reiser4
on everything from their amd64 to their toaster forever, all claiming
"stability" even at times when reiser4 support wouldn't compile on that
platform.  What I am trying to point out here is that reports in the
forums should be taken with a grain of salt.  I'm unaware of any testing
having been done by the amd64 team recently.  I am aware of several
people with "stable" reiser4 systems having the file system go tits up
on them, however.  I don't remember what platform they were on, but I
also know that they were running kernels not in the tree, which means
they have questionable stability themselves, so pinpointing the file
system as the actual problem is difficult, at best.  My suggestion is to
try it.  If it works for you, then great.  If it doesn't, don't come
asking us, as we'll probably say something like "I told you so."

Basically, I think it is perfectly fine to play around with reiser4, but
I wouldn't trust it with *my* data.  Not yet.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: grub reiser4

[Duncan]

Chris Gianelloni posted <1128344061.6692.11.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net>,
excerpted below,  on Mon, 03 Oct 2005 08:54:21 -0400:

> On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 10:02 +0000, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
>> On 02/10/05, R Hill <dirtyepic.sk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I still think it's retarded to have a reiser 4 boot partition, but
>> > whatever stirs your pot. ;P
>> 
>> It makes sense if you're actually using reiser4 for everything else.
>> Why bloat your kernel with an extra FS just for /boot?
> 
> The space added to a kernel for ext2 is *much* less than the overhead of
> using a journaling file system for /boot.  You're wasting exponentially
> more space using reiser on /boot.  The same would be true if you were
> using ext3, which is why you always see us suggesting using ext2 for
> boot.

Disk-space, yes.  However, memory-wise, kernel memory is locked memory,
not swappable.  If one is already using reiserfs for other partitions,
using it for boot and either not compiling ext2 or making it a module and
not loading it under normal circumstances, means more efficient use of
memory.  Disk-space @ 50 cents a gig, tens of megs is no big deal.  Memory
space @ 50 dollars a gig or more, and much less of it to spare, a few
tens of kBytes, particularly of locked memory, IS a big deal.  (Kernel
2.6.14-rc3 ext2.ko, compiled for size on amd64, 63,839 bytes, here.)

However, all the arguments based on space required for journalling go out
the window with reiser4, because as I explained in a previous post, it's
more literally atomic commits than traditional journalling.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] grub reiser4

[Roy Marples]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1350 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 09:17 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 10:10 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > On 03/10/05, Mike Doty <kingtaco@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > I'd prefer if the patch was left out for amd64 users, or included via a
> > > use flag.  reiser4 isn't yet stable or proven on amd64.
> > 
> > A quick search found this quote: "The topic in channel #gentoo-amd64
> > on irc.freenode.net has said "Reiser4 is evil" for more than a year."
> > 
> > However http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_AMD_64 and the forum threads it
> > links to seem to suggest that people are successfully using reiser4 on
> > amd64 with recent kernels?

> My suggestion is to
> try it.  If it works for you, then great.  If it doesn't, don't come
> asking us, as we'll probably say something like "I told you so."
> 
> Basically, I think it is perfectly fine to play around with reiser4, but
> I wouldn't trust it with *my* data.  Not yet.
> 

I've been using reiser4 on and off on my amd64 box for ~ 6 months now
without any reiser4 related issues. It mainly runs the stable tree aside
from a few packages I maintain.

Do I trust my data on reiser4? Just as much as I trust ext3, so I keep
backups. Which everyone should do regardless of OS/fs type, etc :P

-- 
Roy Marples <uberlord@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]