Save File Issues

[phhpro]

...

[dustbunnies]

Having chosen xfs format for my savefile.dat container (b/c ext2 isn't, I've just discovered a "gotcha":
cannot SHRINK the size of an existing xfs filesystem
http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_Is_ ... smaller.3F
Choosing xfs for savefile.dat and specifying an overly large size can be problematic when you later want to use copy2ram boot option

BTW, I've searched the forum and didn't find an explanation/rationale: Why is the non-journaling ext2 fs not offered as an option ?

[fanthom]

Choosing xfs for savefile.dat and specifying an overly large size can be problematic when you later want to use copy2ram boot option
dont understand what you mean but will try to answer:
copy2ram makes no difference from save.dat point of view. modules are loaded from tmpfs and not from booting media - both takes no effect on changes.

Why is the non-journaling ext2 fs not offered as an option ?
good question - probably because nobody asked for it so far i'm sure brokenman will address this request in next release.
thanks

[francois]

@ jimwg
I understand your point of view.
Here is another one:
As Windows belongs to a Windows Filesystem, Linux belongs to a Linux Filesystem.
And if you do it that way, you will never have to worry about a save.dat-file
or how to save changes. 8)

Thus the solution would be to stop using these save.dat containers. Have a usb key partitioned in linux for most part of the key and add a second partition in fat so the data is available from the MS environment.

This partitioning of the usb could be friendly automated isn't it?

When you have such a mostly unix-enough fat usb-key, what are the advantages of keeping these save.dat containers except for having an additional alternative to install porteus. What are the pros and cons of using these containers? Why would you reccomend it? They create more problems than they solve.