[Top] [All Lists]

Re: EXT vs XFS at 80% filled filesystem

To: Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: EXT vs XFS at 80% filled filesystem
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 06:46:22 -0600
Cc: Milind <milind@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20090520105011.GD3523@xxxxxxx>
References: <49F9565E.40804@xxxxxxxxx> <20090430183450.GB19276@xxxxxxx> <1242651808.3339.28.camel@alhena> <20090518131755.GJ32019@xxxxxxx> <1242798210.3457.4.camel@alhena> <20090520105011.GD3523@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 06:50:11AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> The debian packages ultimately end up building e2fsprogs three times,
> with different sets of configure options.  One is the standard build,
> one is for the restricted-size build for boot floppies (which arguably
> we don't need any more since we these days CD-ROM's have plenty of
> space, and Debian doesn't support boot floppies any more) and one is
> for the static build for e2fsck.static (although the utility of that
> one is somewhat dubious given that even the shell is with shared
> library, so if the filesystem is corrupted enough that shared libaries
> don't work, it's rescue CD-ROM time; the main use for e2fsck.static is
> for emergency use when someone running an older version of Debian
> needs a newer e2fsck to fix a filesystem corruption).

If you install sash, you really do get a statically linked shell:

$ ldd /bin/sash 
ldd: exited with unknown exit code (126)
$ file /bin/sash 
/bin/sash: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), statically 
linked, for GNU/Linux 2.6.8, stripped

Matthew Wilcox                          Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>