Handbook Talk:Parts/Installation/Disks

Typo

Talk status

This discussion is done.

Journaled filesystems prevent long delays when the system is booted and he filesystem happens to be in an inconsistent state.

Journaled filesystems prevent long delays when the system is booted and the filesystem happens to be in an inconsistent state.

-- SebastianSchmid (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for reporting. --SwifT (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Typo

Talk status

This discussion is done as of November 18, 2016.

Later in the instructions the proc filesystem (a virtual interface with the kernel) as well as other kernel psuedo-filesystems will be mounted.

Later in the instructions the proc filesystem (a virtual interface with the kernel) as well as other kernel pseudo-filesystems will be mounted.

--FabianP (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you! --Maffblaster (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Minor problems

Talk status

This discussion is done as of 2021-10-27.

I would replace "Now that the partitions are created" with "Now that the partitions have been created"
I would add a comma to the following sentence (between "allocation" and "ext4"): "Instead of the classic ext2/3 bitmap block allocation ext4 uses extents, which improve large file performance and reduce fragmentation."
I would replace "Apple's OSX" with "Apple's macOS" (see Wikipedia page)
I would change "Similar to vfat above it does not store UNIX permission settings" to "Similarly to VFAT, it does not store UNIX permission settings"
In the initial list of available filesystems, ext2, ext3, and JFS lack a link to their corresponding Gentoo wiki articles

-- Fturco (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggested fixed applied except for the last one. ext2, ext3 have been removed from the handbook since they are antiquated at this point. See Special:Diff/1018938/1023993 for the fixes. --Maffblaster (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

ntfs

Talk status

This discussion is done as of 2020-07-06.

ntfs is part of windows since nt 3.1, not 3.1.--Nikitastepanov (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Typo

Talk status

This discussion is done as of 2020-07-06.

"information on the issues present in btrfs in the latest kernel branches is avaliable at the btrfs wiki status page."

The word avaliable should be replaced by available. -- Fturco (talk) 07:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Reiserfs

Talk status

This discussion is done as of August 31, 2020.

Reiserfs is included in mainline Linux--Nikitastepanov (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Updated --Grknight (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Included in mainline Linux as of when? Does anyone have a link or official news item to support this? ~~As far as I can see as of the most recent commit, reiserfs is not included in "mainline" Linux (nor has it ever been).~~ The only way to have reiserfs version 4 it is to use the reiserfs patches on top of the mainline kernel. I'll backpedal any changes to the contrary for now, Brian Evans (Grknight) can revert my backpedaling if I'm mistaken. Thank you! --Maffblaster (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Upon further review, I was mistaken. reiserfs version 3 was and has been included with the mainstream Linux and appears to be somewhat maintained. Version 4 (the latest version) was the object of my thoughts when I was saying it has never been included in mainsteam (above). reiserfs v5 was announced late (Dec) 2019, which is not included (yet) in mainline either. The ebuilds for userspace utilities do not note they utilities for reiser v3. I could see users getting confused during the installation process for if they choose reiserfs. Still wouldn't recommend as a handbook suggested path, but I think we can remove the warning if we note this is reiserfs v3 specific. --Maffblaster (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Typo

Talk status

This discussion is done.

In the sentence «Alernatively they could be useful for short-term backups» in section T44 «Alernatively» should be spelled as «Alternatively»: «Alternatively they could be useful for short-term backups» -- WoelfiVW (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, corrected. --Grknight (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

GPT: Note about Windows needs to be corrected...

Talk status

This discussion is still ongoing.

Under GUID Partition Table (GPT), the note says:

Using GPT on a BIOS-based computer works, but then one cannot dual-boot with a Microsoft Windows operating system. The reason is that Microsoft Windows will boot in UEFI mode if it detects a GPT partition label.

This is wrong, because the logic is reversed. The boot mode is not determined by the partition table. At the stage where Windows (or its boot loader) takes over, the boot mode is a given. (And "Windows will not boot in UEFI mode if it detects a GPT partition label"... It simply cannot change the boot mode that easily...)

The opposite is true: When Windows is booted in BIOS mode (UEFI CSM), it will refuse to boot unless the system partition is a legacy MBR partition. Likewise Windows will refuse to boot in (U)EFI mode when the partition is not a GPT partition. This is even then the case when the partition used for \WINDOWS is absolutely accessible during the boot process (in which case the refusal to continue is simply a design decision)...

Correct is:

BIOS → MBR
(U)EFI → GPT

Wrong is:

MBR → BIOS
GPT → UEFI

However, it is also true that certain UEFI implementations will start the CSM if a (hybrid) MBR (or at least more than just a protective MBR) is detected. Notably certain Macs use this method, most likely for Boot Camp to function correctly. Most PCs use a manual method: if a CSM is loaded or not has to be enabled or disabled in the firmware setup. Thus UEFI on a PC will always be in (U)EFI mode, even with an MBR, when the CSM is disabled in the firmware setup. And the boot option for a legacy MBR, with CSM enabled, will always end up in BIOS mode, which will only load the boot block, block 0, which is the (protective) MBR, even when using a GPT (like with GRUB and a "BIOS boot partition", or to e.g. boot Windows in legacy/BIOS mode using hybrid partitioning on a Mac).

Dropping ReiserFS

Talk status

This discussion is done as of 2022-07-14.

With the recent Phoronix news, I would suggest dropping ReiserFS from the handbook. I made a temporary entry here but ultimately feel it should just be removed. Please provide input. --Grknight (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Good suggestion. No one else commented; it's just me and you! Mention of ReiserFS has been removed in this change Special:Diff/1057545/1077314. Thanks, Brian Evans (Grknight) . --Maffblaster (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Typo

Talk status

This discussion is done.

{{Anchor|Creating_file_systems Creating file systems is missing the closing }}. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rom (talk • contribs)

Fixed --Grknight (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)