You are not logged in.

#1 2017-10-08 10:26:52

alveola666
Member
Registered: 2017-10-08
Posts: 2

Subject

Message

Last edited by alveola666 (2020-10-20 10:00:58)

Offline

#2 2017-10-08 11:06:07

graysky
Wiki Maintainer
From: :wq
Registered: 2008-12-01
Posts: 10,595
Website

Re: Subject

I don't think f2fs is ready for a system partition.  Better to use ext4.  If you must, see the wiki for the relavant config to boot to f2fs if this is possible.  Then you should use a tarball or rsync to copy over the data, reformat, then copy back the data.


CPU-optimized Linux-ck packages @ Repo-ck  • AUR packagesZsh and other configs

Offline

#3 2017-10-08 11:12:47

ua4000
Member
Registered: 2015-10-14
Posts: 402

Re: Subject

For f2fs read here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/F2FS

For "File system cloning" use rsync: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Rs … em_cloning

It would be wise to test the whole thing on another system first.

Offline

#4 2017-10-08 11:18:46

drcouzelis
Member
From: Connecticut, USA
Registered: 2009-11-09
Posts: 4,092
Website

Re: Subject

I've never heard of F2FS before! In what way is it better for you than EXT4?

Offline

#5 2017-10-08 11:45:20

Trilby
Inspector Parrot
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 29,441
Website

Re: Subject

There is no need for a "flash friendly" filesystem on any even remotely modern SSD.  It might be useful on actual flash drives, but SSDs and flash drives are completely different creatures.  I've even used ext4 on persistent usb installs for quite some time without issue though I'd admit to potentially living on the edge a bit there.  For my SSD systems, I just use ext4 and am not remotely concerned about the I/O cycles wearing out the disk: worm cycles will wear out my decaying and burried body before I/O cycles threaten my disks.

Last edited by Trilby (2017-10-08 11:45:47)


"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" -  Richard Stallman

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB