xfs
[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>