[Tuxaloosa] Question about /boot

[Beddingfield, Allen]

>
> I think 500MB is bigger than you could possibly need, and I think
> either ext2 or ext3 is fine.  I generally use ext2 and keep /boot
> mounted readonly until/unless I upgrade a kernel.
>
>

I just like to know that I will never come close to running out of space...

> I *hate* xfs.  I can certainly understand why you might need/want it,
> but unlinks (file removals) are horrifically slow, and I guess I do
> that often enough to notice the delay.  Aside from that, I don't really
> have any valid criticisms of xfs.  I used to use jfs on everything, but
> these days, ext4 is serving quite well.
>
> -RW
>

It has its drawbacks, but I deal mostly with SUSE these days, and that 
is their preferred FS after  Hans Reiser (murderfs) went to prison.  The 
latest OpenSUSE versions added ext4, but they  are not pushing it at 
all, and it has not made its way into the Enterprise distro (but I 
noticed it was in the last beta build I tried).  The general opinion 
from both the OpenSUSE and the enterprise folks seems to be that they 
consider ext4 to be flawed, and it is added for 
compatibility/interoperability only, and it is not a preferred config.  
The last official word I heard was that they are sticking with xfs, and 
holding out for btrfs (which they have been including as an 
"experimental" option for a while.
You are very correct about the slow file removals - they are horrid.  It 
is really the only viable option we have for large filesystems, though 
(we have some 20TB+ filesystems).  Also, for day to day operations for 
the types of VMs we host, it seems to outperform ext3.  Fortunately (or 
unfortunately, since we have to house all of it) our users don't 
generate a large number of deletes - at least not intentionally!
I noticed that RHEL added xfs support (finally!) in 6.x, but it is a 
licensed option (wtf?!) and is not supported on the "/" filesystem.

Allen B.