[David Weinehall]
> Ehrm, I don't think having /usr/lib on a fat FS is an option anyway,
> considering its lacking file ownership/permission support and its
> filename munging...
I should think the lack of symlink support is the real problem.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 11:47:31AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[snip]
> But the problem remains that you have to look at each dire entry in
> unhashed ext2/3, fat or minix.
Ehrm, I don't think having /usr/lib on a fat FS is an option anyway,
considering its lacking file ownership/permissio
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le jeudi 12 mai 2005 à 18:32 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
>> > You said it: there is a cache. After the first access, the directory
>> > will be in the cache. Making all of this a purely imaginary problem.
>>
>> The whole directory is in the
Le jeudi 12 mai 2005 à 18:32 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
> > You said it: there is a cache. After the first access, the directory
> > will be in the cache. Making all of this a purely imaginary problem.
>
> The whole directory is in the cache? I don't think so. Remember,
> that in betwe
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mercredi 11 mai 2005 Ã 13:35 -0300, Humberto Massa a Ãcrit :
>> Imagine that, to load Konqui, you have to go 200 times to the disk (ok,
>> cache, but...), each of them reading the 1 entries I have in
>> /usr/lib, some of them twice or three t
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Which doesn't? Minix maybe. Even ext2/3 has hashes for dir if you
> > format it that way.
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> Is this the Debian default for installation?
Yes, it is. I just checked and every install I've done turned this on wi
Peter Samuelson wrote:
(...)
HOWEVER
This is a very silly thing to argue about without benchmarks. Those
who care about this - yes, Thomas, I mean you - should get numbers.
Here's how:
(steps 1-6)
You are 100% right and I stand corrected.
--
HTH,
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
Le mercredi 11 mai 2005 à 13:35 -0300, Humberto Massa a écrit :
> Imagine that, to load Konqui, you have to go 200 times to the disk (ok,
> cache, but...), each of them reading the 1 entries I have in
> /usr/lib, some of them twice or three times, to follow the symlinks.
>
> This is a real i
[Humberto Massa]
> As I said before, as far as I recall, the Debian installer suggested
> me only filesystems that have O(1) [O(log n) worst case] directory
> lookup. I chose reiserfs, but the installer IIRC suggested ext3 and
> xfs as alternatives.
As Christoph (I think) said, Debian creates ex
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 17:35, Humberto Massa wrote:
> This is not an imaginary problem, after all, in principle.
>
> Let's see, as I wrote before, my installation has *thousands* of files
> in /usr/lib and, in some filesystems, this can add up to a very large
> time (and ab-use of dentry cache m
Will Newton wrote:
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 17:21, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
BUt according to Christoph Hellwig, the ext3 which is the default is
used without directory indexing, which returns you to O(n).
You have yet to present any numbers which show there is a problem here.
Can we pleas
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 17:21, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> BUt according to Christoph Hellwig, the ext3 which is the default is
> used without directory indexing, which returns you to O(n).
You have yet to present any numbers which show there is a problem here.
Can we please discuss real world
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>>Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>>
>>>
What does the default Debian install do?
>>>Debian seems to use ext3 with
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What does the default Debian install do?
Debian seems to use ext3 without directory indexing by default.
Which is a sane choice as directory i
Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would you agree that "that bug" should be fixed (in Etch), irrespective
> of whether the FHS is also changed to split /usr/lib?
I'm not expert enough on the other factors that might be relevant to
say.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> What does the default Debian install do?
>
> Debian seems to use ext3 without directory indexing by default.
> Which is a sane choice as directory indexing on ext3 still seems to
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
default? A: Last time I installed Debian (15 days ago), it asked me if
I wanted my partition ext3, xfs, or reiserfs IIRC; I chose reiserfs,
and I am pretty su
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 11 May 2005 05:50, Goswin von Brederlow
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
>> >
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > Why would it be desirab
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 05:50, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
> >
>
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> What does the default Debian install do?
Debian seems to use ext3 without directory indexing by default.
Which is a sane choice as directory indexing on ext3 still seems to
be not fully mature.
And as mentioned in another thre
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 05:47, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > / on LVM allows for snapshot backups which are the most convenient method
> > of backup.
>
> Except that the kernel freezes the device because the DM lock and
> device node updating deadlock.
>
> Might work with ud
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
default? A: La
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> These are two
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
>>> default? A: Last time I installed Debian (15 days ago), it asked me if
>
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only reason we don't have it is because of petty bickering and
> politics between the FHS folks (several years ago).
That seems a good description of the FHS in general...
-Miles
--
In New York, most people don't have cars, so if you want to kill a p
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Ext2 direntry is 8bytes plus filename (or onlined symlinks, which you have
> a lot on /usr/lib). In my case 54bytes per entry.
Me bad - the symlinks are inlined in the inodes of course.
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
>> default? A: Last time I installed Debian (15 days ago), it asked me if
>> I wanted my partition ext3, xfs, or reiserfs IIRC; I ch
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> How many directory entries do you think fit in a block?
If I see this right I habe 80blocks for 756 entries:
# ls -a | wc -l
756
# ls -lsd
80 drwxr-xr-x 122 root root 57344 May 10 06:34 ./
Most likely in dache. Still a lot to traverse.
Ext2 direntry
Thomas Bushnell BSG dijo [Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:08:57PM -0700]:
> >> If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
> >> think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
> >> semantic significance at all), why separate /lib from /etc?
> >
> > I don't see a semant
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> No lvm backup data available in case of superblock corruption. Bad
>> idea. No booting with init=/bin/sh to patch things back together as /
>> can't be mounted. Bad idea again.
>
> You can store the backup w
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
>> better than linear search time for open, and are they used by a
>> default Debian install?
>
> /etc/ld.so.cache
Um, no. ld.so.cache g
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>>> These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
>>> with the possible exception of FAT and Minix.
>>
>>
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> with the possible exception of FAT and Minix. Q: are they used by a
> default? A: Last time I installed Debian (15 days ago), it asked me if
> I wanted my partition ext3, xfs, or reiserfs IIRC; I chose reiserfs,
> and I am pretty sure finding a file in
> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> You've missed the point. Split / and /boot, that makes
Thomas> sense if it's necessary. Splitting / and /usr does not
Thomas> make sense.
Bad example.
A better example might be if you want to mount /usr via N
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
For sharing the /usr tree among multiple machines with different
architectures (I guess).
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> No lvm backup data available in case of superblock corruption. Bad
> idea. No booting with init=/bin/sh to patch things back together as /
> can't be mounted. Bad idea again.
You can store the backup wherever you like, and an emergency boot via usb
stick
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
> better than linear search time for open, and are they used by a
> default Debian install?
/etc/ld.so.cache
Gruss
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 08:12:38AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We do not have that bug, so it's not important to us.
>
> Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
> better than linear search time for open, and ar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> hoi :)
>
> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:45:32PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
>> Should we change some of these to /usr/libexec?
>
> well, it would be against the FHS, I think.
>
> The BSDs use libexec but I don'
Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 21:37 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 17:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
> >> > Almost all the schemas were already moved out to /usr/share. We plan to
> >> > move the defaults directo
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
>
> On fedora-devel Bill Nottingham suggested having /usr/lib vs /usr/lib64 for
> programs that
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:39, Goswin von Brederlow
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> / on lvm is a major pain in case of error and if you already need a
>> seperate / partition adding another for /boot is a bit stupid.
>
> / on LVM allows for snapshot b
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>> These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
>> with the possible exception of FAT and Minix.
>
> ext2 doesn't.
Convert it to utilize directory hashing. Th
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 17:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
>> > Almost all the schemas were already moved out to /usr/share. We plan to
>> > move the defaults directory structure to /var/lib/gconf after the
>> > release - at least, the default
GOMBAS Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>
>> the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
>> the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
>
> (I assume that /boot is on /. If not, the following still applies
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:21:50PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> >ext2 doesn't.
> >
> With dir_index, yes it does.
If you want to forward port a three year old patch full of bugs and
incompatible to the dir_index used in ext3 - all luck to you.
All debian kernel-image packages don't have it for
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
with the possible exception of FAT and Minix.
ext2 doesn't.
With dir_index, yes it does.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:03:01PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> These are two questions: Q: What filesystems... ? A: Every one of them
> with the possible exception of FAT and Minix.
ext2 doesn't.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
> better than linear search time for open,
reiserfs, ext2/3 (with dir_index), and probably others.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
You've missed the point. Split / and /boot, that makes sense if it's
necessary. Splitting / and /usr does not make sense.
Sure it does. Especially if you want / to be in a Flash disk and /usr to
be somewhere else in the network.
HTH
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
On fedora-devel Bill Nottingham suggested having /usr/lib vs /usr/lib64 for
programs that care about such things and /usr/libexec for programs
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
We do not have that bug, so it's not important to us.
Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
better than linear search time for open, and are they used by a
default Debian install?
These
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:39, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tuesday 10 May 2005 10:36, Goswin von Brederlow
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> - / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
> >> problems
Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 17:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit :
> > Almost all the schemas were already moved out to /usr/share. We plan to
> > move the defaults directory structure to /var/lib/gconf after the
> > release - at least, the defaults brought by package; we have to keep a
> > default
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 10 May 2005 10:36, Goswin von Brederlow
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> - / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
>> problems for /boot.
>
> I believe that there are LILO patches for /boot on LVM. There's no reason
>
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 10 May 2005 02:18, Goswin von Brederlow
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and
>> > having the same directory names used across dis
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 10:21 +0200, GOMBAS Gabor a écrit :
>> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 05:42:31AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>>
>> > > - / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
>> > > problems for /boot.
>> >
>> > Why is tha
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lvm has its backup data in /etc by default. If you ever need it you
> are screwed with / on lvm. Also snapshots and pvmove don't work
> (deadlock).
>
> raid0/5 don't have support in the bootloaders.
>
> reiserfs/xfs miss support in bootloaders or
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> - / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
>> problems for /boot.
>
> Why is that?
Lvm has its backup data in /etc by default. If you ever need it you
are screwed with / on lvm. Also s
GOMBAS Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>
>> the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
>> the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
>
> (I assume that /boot is on /. If not, the following still applies
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 00:55, GOMBAS Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
> > the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
>
> (I assume that /boot is on /. If not
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What do you think are the original reasons "/" needed to be small?
I know what they are. PDP-11 boot loaders couldn't access long block
addresses. This was copied into 32V on the Vax, where it entered
4BSD.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We do not have that bug, so it's not important to us.
Still, nobody has said. What filesystems available on Debian have a
better than linear search time for open, and are they used by a
default Debian install?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
> the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
(I assume that /boot is on /. If not, the following still applies to
/boot.)
Well, grub _does_ access the filesyste
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 10:36, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
> problems for /boot.
I believe that there are LILO patches for /boot on LVM. There's no reason why
GRUB and other boot loaders couldn't be updated in
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 02:18, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and
> > having the same directory names used across distributions provides real
> > benefits (copying con
Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 10:21 +0200, GOMBAS Gabor a écrit :
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 05:42:31AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>
> > > - / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
> > > problems for /boot.
> >
> > Why is that?
>
> Missing bootloader support.
Which bootloader
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
That doesn't make sense. If you get rid of the /usr vs /
distinction,
then there is no "before /usr is mounted".
But then you have a minimum 1-5GB /. That sucks.
Why, exactly? I know people thin
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
semantic significance at all), why separate
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 08:38:02AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it exists.
>
> It reduces search times in libraries, which is important.
We do not have that bug, so it's not import
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> > - / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
>> > problems for /boot.
>>
>> Why is that?
>
> Missing bootloader support.
the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
the kernel and the initrd from /bo
Once upon a time GOMBAS Gabor said...
>
> $ df -h
> FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/hda5 99M 75M 19M 80% /
> [...]
>
> $ du -sh /etc/gconf
> 26M /etc/gconf
>
> That's 1/3 of my root fs. It's damn too much.
I discovered this a while ago and lea
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 05:42:31AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > - / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
> > problems for /boot.
>
> Why is that?
Missing bootloader support.
> > - a larger FS has more chance of failing so you risk having a fully
> > broken system mo
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> - / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
> problems for /boot.
Why is that?
> - a larger FS has more chance of failing so you risk having a fully
> broken system more often
And two file systems have even more chance. One read on
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> That doesn't make sense. If you get rid of the /usr vs / distinction,
>>> then there is no "before /usr is mounted".
>>
>> But then you have a minimum 1-5GB /. That sucks.
>
> Why, exactly?
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> That doesn't make sense. If you get rid of the /usr vs / distinction,
>> then there is no "before /usr is mounted".
>
> But then you have a minimum 1-5GB /. That sucks.
Why, exactly? I know people think it's obvious, but the lack of
stated r
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
>>> think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
>>> semanti
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
>>> think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
>>> semanti
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which doesn't? Minix maybe. Even ext2/3 has hashes for dir if you
> format it that way.
Is this the Debian default for installation?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I may be completely wrong here, but as far as I understand, ld turns
>> -lfoo into /usr/lib/libfoo.a and then uses that if it can find it. It
>> might look into some other directories as well, and it
Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
>> think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
>> semantic significance at all), why separate /lib from /etc?
>
>
Thomas, please read
http://www.nl.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-resources.en.html#s-mailing-lists-rules
about not sending Cc's unless people explicitly ask to be copied.
(Mail-Followup-To is non-standard and badly supported, and also
unnecessary. Any decent mail user agent can deal with
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If there is a reason to separate /usr from / (which so many people
> think there is, though I don't understand why, since it has no
> semantic significance at all), why separate /lib from /etc?
I don't see a semantic difference between /bin and /u
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I may be completely wrong here, but as far as I understand, ld turns
> -lfoo into /usr/lib/libfoo.a and then uses that if it can find it. It
> might look into some other directories as well, and it might fill in foo
> into some other patterns than "lib%
ma, 2005-05-09 kello 14:39 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG kirjoitti:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You asked why the GNU linker, which does not need to be 'ls' and does
> > not need to look at the list of files in any directory, scaled well
> > with the size of the directory.
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You asked why the GNU linker, which does not need to be 'ls' and does
> not need to look at the list of files in any directory, scaled well
> with the size of the directory. That's the question I answered.
How does ld determine that -latoheun will
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:33:32PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:21:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > The number of directory entries in /usr/li
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:21:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > The number of directory entries in /usr/lib should not make any
>> > difference to a modern GNU linker on a modern filesyst
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:21:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The number of directory entries in /usr/lib should not make any
> > difference to a modern GNU linker on a modern filesystem, unless
> > you have thousands or millions of them
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The number of directory entries in /usr/lib should not make any
> difference to a modern GNU linker on a modern filesystem, unless
> you have thousands or millions of them.
Why? Is there magic now?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
hoi :)
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 08:38:02AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it exists.
> It reduces search times in libraries, which is important.
well, /usr/lib is not _that_ crowded.
Any sane filesystem should handle that many fi
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
>>> under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
>>> vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that /usr/
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 08:39:10AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
> >> under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
> >> vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
> >>
> >>
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
> under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
> vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
>
> It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and having
> the sam
On Monday 09 May 2005 17:17, Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In principle, there could be files which can be used as both a shared
> library and an internal binary. Where would you put such files?
Anything that's a shared object has to be in a directory that ldconfig knows
about. The
Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
>> under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
>> vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
>>
>> It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things,
>
> I disagree.
Martin Waitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The BSDs use libexec but I don't really see a good reason why it exists.
It reduces search times in libraries, which is important.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't know if there's an argument for it other than clarity and
> warm fuzzies.
Not that there is anything wrong with warm fuzzies. I prefer that to
a file hierarchy layout that gives me the chills.
> [I personally think that if a good idea is "agains
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
