| Author |
Message |
Sit Heel Speak

Joined: 30 Mar 2006 Posts: 2595 Location: downwind
|
Posted: Fri 13 Nov 2009, 04:56 Post subject:
Why we need Grub 2: 256-bit inode support, needed for ext4 |
|
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/tutorials/6480/1/
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
amigo
Joined: 02 Apr 2007 Posts: 1757
|
Posted: Fri 13 Nov 2009, 07:40 Post subject:
|
|
There's a patch to 0.97 which adds support for 256-bit inodes and you actually use the same ext2_stage1_5 just by making a copy called
ext4_stage1_5
No need to panic just yet
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
Patriot

Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 734
|
Posted: Fri 13 Nov 2009, 08:07 Post subject:
Re: Why we need Grub 2: 256-bit inode support, needed for ex |
|
Hmmm .....
Sith eel Speak,
..... or may I suggest that you dabble with grub4dos, which by the way, have 256bit inode support since somewhere june 2008 and ext4 since Feb 2009 ...
I've replaced all grub legacy loaders with grub4dos when I found out simple condition checking works .....
Rgds
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
sikpuppy

Joined: 29 Mar 2009 Posts: 433
|
Posted: Fri 13 Nov 2009, 08:57 Post subject:
|
|
If Ubuntu 9.10 is anything to go by, GRUB 2 is very slow at booting. I think I'd rather stick with a patched 0.97 myself.
Even 9.04 was fairly quick to boot, and that was with GRUB 0.97 and off a ext4 partition.
_________________ ASUS A1000, 800Mhz PIII Coppermine!, 192Mb RAM, 10Gb IBM Travelstar HDD, Build date August 2001.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
davesurrey
Joined: 05 Aug 2008 Posts: 1201 Location: UK
|
Posted: Fri 13 Nov 2009, 12:35 Post subject:
|
|
sikpuppy wrote:
| Quote: | | If Ubuntu 9.10 is anything to go by, GRUB 2 is very slow at booting... |
Certainly it's a lot slower than Puppy but I did try both grub2 and grub 0.97 with 9.10 and found no significant difference in boot times, as I would expect.
However whatever grub2 offers for the future it's certainly a pita to set up compared with 0.97
Cheers
Dave
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
Sit Heel Speak

Joined: 30 Mar 2006 Posts: 2595 Location: downwind
|
Posted: Fri 13 Nov 2009, 15:16 Post subject:
|
|
Ah, thank you all for the information!
A lot of last-minute additions were made by the Ubuntu developers between 9.04 and 9.10 --more than 200, by my count-- --possibly many more, that's just where I gave up on counting-- under intense pressure to meet their October 29 2009 release deadline. Obviously they didn't get 9.10 well ironed out, working in such haste.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
sikpuppy

Joined: 29 Mar 2009 Posts: 433
|
Posted: Fri 13 Nov 2009, 16:09 Post subject:
|
|
| Sit Heel Speak wrote: | Ah, thank you all for the information!
A lot of last-minute additions were made by the Ubuntu developers between 9.04 and 9.10 --more than 200, by my count-- --possibly many more, that's just where I gave up on counting-- under intense pressure to meet their October 29 2009 release deadline. Obviously they didn't get 9.10 well ironed out, working in such haste. |
IMHO the same was true of 8.10, which wasn't as polished as 9.04.
| davesurrey wrote: | ...
Certainly it's a lot slower than Puppy but I did try both grub2 and grub 0.97 with 9.10 and found no significant difference in boot times, as I would expect. |
I'm curious as to why 9.10 is slow to boot using either GRUB. Do you find that it stays on the logo for an inordinate amount of time before reaching the progress bar screen? I'll have to find out what exactly it's doing behind the scenes.
_________________ ASUS A1000, 800Mhz PIII Coppermine!, 192Mb RAM, 10Gb IBM Travelstar HDD, Build date August 2001.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
davesurrey
Joined: 05 Aug 2008 Posts: 1201 Location: UK
|
Posted: Fri 13 Nov 2009, 20:31 Post subject:
|
|
Hi sikpuppy,
I can't give you a very scientific answer except to say that I don't find 9.10 boots slower than any other Ubuntu since 6.04 (I think) but of course it's slower than puppy.
I don't notice it "hangs" at any part of the boot sequence but in any case whatever we feel about grub2 I can't criticise it for slowness.
Cheers
Dave
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
sikpuppy

Joined: 29 Mar 2009 Posts: 433
|
Posted: Fri 13 Nov 2009, 20:42 Post subject:
|
|
| davesurrey wrote: | Hi sikpuppy,
I can't give you a very scientific answer except to say that I don't find 9.10 boots slower than any other Ubuntu since 6.04 (I think) but of course it's slower than puppy.
I don't notice it "hangs" at any part of the boot sequence but in any case whatever we feel about grub2 I can't criticise it for slowness.
Cheers
Dave |
Ok it must be my 9.10 install. I'll do a fresh install and see. Thanks.
_________________ ASUS A1000, 800Mhz PIII Coppermine!, 192Mb RAM, 10Gb IBM Travelstar HDD, Build date August 2001.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
davesurrey
Joined: 05 Aug 2008 Posts: 1201 Location: UK
|
Posted: Fri 13 Nov 2009, 21:00 Post subject:
|
|
FWIW just did a quick boot (on the same PC) to Puppy 431 (46 seconds) and to Ubuntu 9.10 (100secs).
As I said FWIW
Dave
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
sikpuppy

Joined: 29 Mar 2009 Posts: 433
|
Posted: Fri 13 Nov 2009, 21:29 Post subject:
|
|
| davesurrey wrote: | FWIW just did a quick boot (on the same PC) to Puppy 431 (46 seconds) and to Ubuntu 9.10 (100secs).
As I said FWIW
Dave |
Nah, this is in the range of a few minutes on my desktop, so I think that something is borked.
I made the mistake of reading a few people had this issue, but it's probably more a case of PEBCAK with me :S
*Problem Exists Between Chair And Keyboard
_________________ ASUS A1000, 800Mhz PIII Coppermine!, 192Mb RAM, 10Gb IBM Travelstar HDD, Build date August 2001.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
|