Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 6.9 Deprecates The EXT2 File-System Driver

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by emblemparade View Post
    Sigh. Phoronix did not explain the situation properly and people are getting confused.
    It did, but apparently some people didn't read properly:

    The EXT4 driver is able to handle EXT2 file-systems while properly supporting dates past the Y2038 problem.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Old Grouch View Post

      Note: EFI System Partitions are not FAT32 formatted.

      A close reading of the UEFI specifications will show the differences between the format of an ESP and FAT32. The differences might be regarded as small, but they do exist.
      Huh? As far as I know, they are FAT formatted. The only difference is that they have the "EFI System" partition type instead of "Microsoft basic data" in the partition table.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by byteabit View Post
        I wonder who still uses EXT2? Servers? Anyone who can install Linux on the system, can most probably use EXT4 or at least 3 I guess.
        I did.
        Back in the days(TM) I would be using ext2 for /boot partitions w. grub1, occasionally on early USB sticks (no journal -> less write cycles). Today one wouldn't need that and I guess it is okay to deprecate it, as long as it can still be read at least, in case one finds and old media with it.
        Stop TCPA, stupid software patents and corrupt politicians!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by ferry View Post

          I have /boot as a btrfs sub volume boot
          I have a feeling this is how they have it in OpenSuse.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Rovano View Post
            >/boot is btrfs
            I have a feeling this is how they have it in OpenSuse.
            It all comes down to the bootloader. If you use EXTLINUX, which only has a driver for ext, you need your kernels on ext2. If you use grub, which has a driver for btrfs/xfs/..., your kernels can be on that. And if you use LILO, it does not matter because in place of a filesystem driver, it just stores the raw on-disk block locations of the kernel (necessitating reruns all the time, but that's another story for another time).

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by uxmkt View Post
              It all comes down to the bootloader. If you use EXTLINUX, which only has a driver for ext, you need your kernels on ext2. If you use grub, which has a driver for btrfs/xfs/..., your kernels can be on that. And if you use LILO, it does not matter because in place of a filesystem driver, it just stores the raw on-disk block locations of the kernel (necessitating reruns all the time, but that's another story for another time).
              I know that.
              Nice to hear a mention of LILO. I haven't heard from him in a long time.​

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by ferry View Post

                I have /boot as a btrfs sub volume
                Do you have a separate btrfs partition just for /boot? Otherwise I don't see a point in having it as its own subvolume vs. just in the same subvolume as the main root is. For snapshots you likely do not want to treat /boot any different from the rest of the system where the modules belonging to the kernels in /boot are residing.
                The main reason I see to have a separate /boot is for some complex disk/partition/raid/fs setups where the bootloader can't access the root partition/snapshot but needs to have some simpler storage to load the kernel and initrd from. That is likely not the case for your setup. Having multiple OS installs using the same /boot gets quite messy, so I also would not consider that as a good use case (especially since you do not save on wasted space with btrfs from having multiple OS install using the same subvolume vs. different subvolumes).​

                Currently I also use one large btrfs partition and just have /boot be a normal directory in the same subvolume as the rest of the system. Works fine with grub2. I can't remember when I last had a separate /boot partition, but that must be a really long time ago.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Time to move to the sysvinit-heirloom-busybox-gtk1-xfree86-oss-artsd-bazaar-bcpl distro with 16-bit cga and hercules drivers. Ext2 was a perfect choice for 20 x 24 TB enterprise software RAID-0 arrays using mdadm.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Rovano View Post

                    I know that.
                    Nice to hear a mention of LILO. I haven't heard from him in a long time.​
                    Yeah good ol' LILO from the "way back time." Hell, even GRUB1 at this point is pretty old.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by carewolf View Post
                      Not the classic unix mount of /boot, that would be weird
                      I don't really understand why people like having so many mount points tbh.

                      Even partitions are mostly useless (apart from the EFI FAT32 crap and requirements). If you want a separate filesystem (which is totally understandable, such as not polluting the metadata/inodes on the other one) you can just use a loopback mount on an image file containing it.

                      And it won't even take permanent space if it's not full, just call fstrim on it and it automatically shrinks. There's your "partition" as a simple file on your main partition.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X