Le 23/11/2025 à 13:43, g4sra via Dng a écrit :
>> Le 22/11/2025 à 06:00, katphish a écrit :
>>
>>> Yeah that was a big reason back in the day Another was security, /boot
>>> could be read-only or not even mounted.
> Yes, and also resilience and robustness could be improved for both reduced hardware wear'n'tear and risk of filesystem corruption.
> Even in the event of a power failure a strong assumption can be made that the integrity of /boot still holds.

    Back in the 90's I would have agreed with your conceptions. But, in
2001, came Reiserfs, the first journaling filesystem. As from the first
time I installed it, I never ever got anytime an unrepairable filesystem
in case of power failure. Instead it repaired automatically in seconds
at next boot. Only once I got an unbootable system: because /boot was a
partition and it went out of available space during linux-image upgrade.
I'll never make this error again; it's trouble for zero benefit.

    Of course anyone has the right to stick to ext2, and, in this case,
yes, better protect everything you can and juggle with remounting
partitions.

    I'm relatively new to ext4 (because reiserfs is loosing support),
but it seems safe: I experimented several poweroffs without loosing
data. I'm still irritated by the presence of their f...ing lost+found
directory, but it remains empty.

--     Didier