Page 1 of 1

choice of ext3 or reiserfs for native install?

Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 7:36 pm
by Schultz
I understand that you are keeping reiserfs for the rootfs images because of how better reiserfs is at lowering dist usage with small files.

But would it be possible to give users a choice of ext3 or reiserfs if they are doing a native installer?

I have actually hacked a gentooxinstaller file and copied the needed binary files from the initrd.gz from MCE since it had the binary which could format for ext2.? i have tested it on a harddrive and it worked.. Though i didn't do extensive testing. Just wondering if this would be possible?

Also isn't reiserfs the reason you can't upgrade beyond 2.4.22 for the xbox?

Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 12:33 am
by ShALLaX
Yes, its possible... ive tried it compared to reiserfs and it benchmarks considerably slower.

Its also a LOT of work to do that.. and totally breaks backwards compatibility. Also, if i provide it as an option, that means maintaining two different kernel branches (one for reiser and one for ext3)... sorry, but if you want ext3, you have to do it in your own... which you did.

Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 1:37 am
by Schultz
I was just asking because i have had bad experiances with reiserfs messing up my harddrives before. (Was running Slackware 9.0 on desktop)

And also i wasn't asking to make ext3 the whole thing just an option.. Plus i wouldn't expect you to support two different kernel versions as if this is wanted this should be done via the user..

But i guess that again if you would want this then it should be up to the user not you having to maintain it. The only thing i am worried about is how it would mess up magic if i started customizing with my own kernel and such. Which i am trying to do at the moment. But not having too much luck with the correct options to choose in the compiling.

P.S. I also thought it was funny that you use ext3 on your webserver instead of reiserfs. ;o)

Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
by Guest