Re: [gentoo-user] Re: raid1 grub ext4

[Joost Roeleveld <joost@antarean.org>]

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