KNOPPIX 6.7.1 on USB with very large persistent data image.

[fmateo]

I think also is useful to format the usb stick as reiserfs and copying knoppix files there, and make it bootable manually with grub.. at this point with reiserfs you can create the persistent file even larger..

My first thread have more info about how to do that

[Capricorny]

I think also is useful to format the usb stick as reiserfs and copying knoppix files there, and make it bootable manually with grub.. at this point with reiserfs you can create the persistent file even larger..

My first thread have more info about how to do that

I wonder what you mean by "create .. even larger"? The main reason Klaus K has given for why reiserfs is used, has to do with file system checking/repair, are there more? For large persistent stores, the default, ext2, is not optimal, so, for example, ext4 may be better. But that is on the store, not on the underlying file system. Which very often is ext3 or ext4, and I wonder if there are little known reasons to go reiserfs?

As for grub, I tend to follow the old advice and create a small boot partition and install it there. Where ext2 is a rather natural choice for me - this partition is seldom written to, only at booting data updates.

Furthermore, my experience is that persistent stores above, say, 8 GB are often not optimal. So personally, I have returned to the 4 GB limit, often going somewhat lower, and remastering as needed. With e.g. NTFS, it may be a "Linux solution" to create a large loopfile with a Unix file system on it, but I prefer rather to shrink NTFS and create pure Unix partitions whenever possible.

[utu]

The main reason Klaus K has given for why reiserfs is used, has to do with file system checking/repair, are there more?

This bothers me as well. I thought it was the case that reiserfs checking
had the reputation of being deficient, relative to, say, ext3.

If so, the reiserfs filesize limits are similar to ext3; both are in the Tb range.
And, since both reiserfs and ext3 are journalled, what is the justification for reiserfs?

After all, a big negative is reiserfs's questionable (if not definitively dismal future) development support state.

[Capricorny]

As long as reiserfs is maintained and runs well, I wouldn't be too much concerned about its future development. I mean, the ext2 system I install grub on is very similar to the ext2 i used back in 1994, I've got the impression not that much has happened in the way of development, but I may be wrong.

I stilll keep looking for the compelling reasons to use reiserfs, though. And I think it may be very little, making fs choice a big issue for everyday use is not very productive in my view.