According to something called the SUSE Geeko Gazette Newsletter which
appeared in my inbox today, we’re getting btrfs support in SP2. So that
sounds nice.
I hate the periodic fsck that happens during boot (not just a SUSE
thing) and that I can’t seem to disable entirely so was planing to move
to ext4 next time I can tell everyone they need to have their machines
re-installed as apparently fsck checks happen much, much quicker with
ext4. But since even the people who made ext4 apparently consider btrfs
to be ‘the future’, looks like I can skip ext4 and go straight to btrfs.
According to something called the SUSE Geeko Gazette Newsletter which
appeared in my inbox today, we’re getting btrfs support in SP2. So
that sounds nice.
I hate the periodic fsck that happens during boot (not just a SUSE
thing) and that I can’t seem to disable entirely so was planing to
move to ext4 next time I can tell everyone they need to have their
machines re-installed as apparently fsck checks happen much, much
quicker with ext4. But since even the people who made ext4 apparently
consider btrfs to be ‘the future’, looks like I can skip ext4 and go
straight to btrfs.
[/color]
Hi
You can change how often it checks or disable (not recommended) in
fstab? Have a look at tun2fs
You can change how often it checks or disable (not recommended) in
fstab? Have a look at tun2fs
[/color]
Yeah I’ve looked at that. Maybe I have disabled it now. Hard to be sure
though. I thought I’d disabled it once before but it turned out the
check was done every six months rather than ever X boots. Of course it
took me about six months to discover that
I know it’s not recommended to disable the fsck. Given the very low
number of times I’ve seen a machine have a problem which fsck wants to
fix, the number of such incidents where it turned out there was a
hardware issue and the time the checks take, I’m in the camp of people
who consider the checks an annoyance. (I have no problem with the
concept of periodic fsck on boot but it needs to take more like five
seconds not five minutes.) Though I don’t find it enough of an annoyance
that I can be bothered making any more effort with regards disabling it.
According to something called the SUSE Geeko Gazette Newsletter which
appeared in my inbox today, we’re getting btrfs support in SP2. So that
sounds nice.
I hate the periodic fsck that happens during boot (not just a SUSE
thing) and that I can’t seem to disable entirely so was planing to move
to ext4 next time I can tell everyone they need to have their machines
re-installed as apparently fsck checks happen much, much quicker with
ext4. But since even the people who made ext4 apparently consider btrfs
to be ‘the future’, looks like I can skip ext4 and go straight to btrfs.[/color]
And I guess that answers the “what”.
[/color]
Did you find these release notes linked from somewhere or just by
changing a 1 to a 2 in the url?
It looks to me like they’re still being written. If you look at the
Miscellaneous section some of the text looks like place holders. Section
2.2 for example about btrfs. As mentioned earlier in this thread
Novell/SUSE have stated that there will btrfs support in SP2, but these
release notes just contain little more than an url to something that
gives me a 403 Forbidden error.
The New Features section is be identical except the word Novell has
been replaced with the word SUSE. This:[color=blue]
3.3. Desktop
GNOME 2.28
GNOME was updated to the latest version and uses PulseAudio for
sound.[/color]
That’s correct in the context of SP1 because SLED 11 was released with
GNOME 2.24 which was updated to 2.28 in SP1. In the context of SP2 it’s
nonsense. If SP2 has GNOME 2.28 it hasn’t been updated, let alone to the
latest version. If in SP2, GNOME has been updated to the latest version
that would be mad because the latest version is 3.2 and GNOME 3 is too
radically different to GNOME 2 for such a change to be in an SP release.
Based upon what happened between SLED 11 and SP1, I expect and hope to
see GNOME 2.32 in SP2.
It’s certainly interesting, exciting even, to know that there is now
something at the url one would expect to find SP2 release notes at
though.
I guess you’re right. Some of the versions mentioned don’t make sense
(yet).
Googling and browsing I somehow reached the SLES 11 SP2 release notes.
After that I tried the same for SLED11 SP2 release notes, bad luck
nothing but SP1.
Then I indeed changed the 1 to a 2 and found out there was something on
its way.
RV
mikewillis;2156503 Wrote:[color=blue]
Did you find these release notes linked from somewhere or just by
changing a 1 to a 2 in the url?
It looks to me like they’re still being written. If you look at the
Miscellaneous section some of the text looks like place holders. Section
2.2 for example about btrfs. As mentioned earlier in this thread
Novell/SUSE have stated that there will btrfs support in SP2, but these
release notes just contain little more than an url to something that
gives me a 403 Forbidden error.
The New Features section is be identical except the word Novell has
been replaced with the word SUSE. This:
That’s correct in the context of SP1 because SLED 11 was released with
GNOME 2.24 which was updated to 2.28 in SP1. In the context of SP2 it’s
nonsense. If SP2 has GNOME 2.28 it hasn’t been updated, let alone to the
latest version. If in SP2, GNOME has been updated to the latest version
that would be mad because the latest version is 3.2 and GNOME 3 is too
radically different to GNOME 2 for such a change to be in an SP release.
Based upon what happened between SLED 11 and SP1, I expect and hope to
see GNOME 2.32 in SP2.
It’s certainly interesting, exciting even, to know that there is now
something at the url one would expect to find SP2 release notes at
though. :)[/color]
