|
2009-12-29
, 16:42
|
|
Posts: 2,355 |
Thanked: 5,249 times |
Joined on Jan 2009
@ Barcelona
|
#12
|
However, if we consider the whole partition scheme, N900 seems to be broken by design: sell a 32GB device which very rapidly fills up a 256MB partition (which is already half full) and turns into a brick.
The Following User Says Thank You to javispedro For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2009-12-29
, 17:11
|
Posts: 292 |
Thanked: 131 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
|
#13
|
Please note that this is NOT about the 256 MiB OneNAND.
I could start saying that end users won't fill their 256 MiB partition, that optifying packages is very easy, and there's more reasons to why you can't drop Debian .deb packages in the N900, but then this thread would convert into yet another /opt discussion and there's been too many of them already. So please don't, and let the discussion of the ext3 partition keep on.
|
2009-12-29
, 22:47
|
Posts: 946 |
Thanked: 1,650 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Germany
|
#14
|
Seriously. I don't see how Nokia shipping a larger _ext3_ partition by default will help users who want to use zfs.
No, it doesn't work flawlessly. It's a bit slower.
And it's sparse, but not smart. If you full format it/fill it ONCE you'll have a 20GiB FAT image _FOREVER_. You'd have to implement vmware-like shrinking capability, etc. Good luck selling that to the average user.
I though your idea was to create one big ext3 partition only.
|
2009-12-29
, 23:29
|
|
Posts: 2,355 |
Thanked: 5,249 times |
Joined on Jan 2009
@ Barcelona
|
#15
|
The sectors are mapped 1:1 and writing is cached on ext3. I don't expect noticable
overhead.
SO FAR we have a 27GiB FAT "forever". Finding unallocated FAT sectors is so simple
that it could be done before every mount.
|
2009-12-29
, 23:35
|
Posts: 946 |
Thanked: 1,650 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Germany
|
#16
|
You can very easily do it yourself on the device. I think the ability to still do that and choose whatever filesystem you want is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than Nokia changing something that works pretty well _right now_.
I can do most of these now, in the 2GiB ext3 partition and the 256 MiB OneNAND. And if the sizes worry you, you can repartition, which works _better_ than the loop file. And you don't get to confuse users when they ask where their 32 GiB are.
Again, what's the difference between a 25GiB MyDocs file in a 27GiB ext3 partition and a 25GiB MyDocs partition with a 2 GiB ext3 partition?
|
2009-12-29
, 23:37
|
|
Posts: 2,355 |
Thanked: 5,249 times |
Joined on Jan 2009
@ Barcelona
|
#17
|
I don't understand your motivation for posting ultra-conservative posts in this thread.
I am pretty disappointed by the default partitioning scheme and the fact that the standard
applications hardcode the MyDocs FAT partition ($HOME is not visible to them).
Can you give us ANY evidence why a loop file is bad?
Do you think the 256MB root + 2GB home is not confusing?
For average joe there would be a 27GiB FAT image and 2GB free space on ext3.
so no change for average joe but many benefits for advanced users.
|
2009-12-29
, 23:46
|
Posts: 946 |
Thanked: 1,650 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Germany
|
#18
|
Until such a software is made, I see no benefit to having a sparse FAT32 file over the current dual partition approach.
So why don't you create the larger ext3 partition into the loop file instead?
This has nothing to do with the partition layout. $HOME has never been visible to the standard applications, even when MyDocs was in the same partition as $HOME.
If you're really interested in this, you can "move" where applications expect MyDocs. At least, you could in Diablo with the $MYDOCSDIR environment variable.
|
2009-12-29
, 23:58
|
|
Posts: 2,355 |
Thanked: 5,249 times |
Joined on Jan 2009
@ Barcelona
|
#19
|
yes, that's a separate (reported) bug, but if MyDocs was a ext3 directory I could simply symlink its subdirs to my $HOME subdirs...
|
2009-12-30
, 00:04
|
|
Posts: 2,355 |
Thanked: 5,249 times |
Joined on Jan 2009
@ Barcelona
|
#20
|
I agree with you in a very general way: you can make the changes you want yourself. However, as titan has pointed out, there are some standards in generally agreed Linux file system structure that could be improved.
However, if we consider the whole partition scheme, N900 seems to be broken by design: sell a 32GB device which very rapidly fills up a 256MB partition (which is already half full) and turns into a brick.
There must be a reason for having this partition scheme in place, but I'm eager to see something better that could be done to fix it. One idea is to use AUFS or other stackable file system mechanism.
If you follow the optifying threads you will see that even having a tool to help change file locations to /opt is not a complete solution. There are dependencies and lots of other things that make porting a standard Linux package to the N900 a little more difficult.
If we could just grab a standard debian package and install it (or at most recompile it) to N900, without the extra care needed to put files in different places, in no time we would have a wealth of available applications for the N900. With additional time and effort, those applications could be adjusted to the Hildon environment, but at least it would be faster to have them. I know there is easydebian but I'm talking about a speed up in porting applications to the N900 with minimum effort.
Now a question: do you or anybody knows how Nokia is planning to deploy fixes to the base Maemo 5 system? Is it going to be updated deb packages or will we have to reflash the devices?
Last edited by soeiro; 2009-12-29 at 16:34.