From 3d57c9f38073b4918df12e94742043d46b854186 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "kts of kettek (nanomo)" Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 04:43:39 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Minor reformatting --- wiki/articles/zfs-macos-arch-linux-dual-boot.qwk | 10 ++++++---- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/wiki/articles/zfs-macos-arch-linux-dual-boot.qwk b/wiki/articles/zfs-macos-arch-linux-dual-boot.qwk index 23d5899..fdf16f7 100644 --- a/wiki/articles/zfs-macos-arch-linux-dual-boot.qwk +++ b/wiki/articles/zfs-macos-arch-linux-dual-boot.qwk @@ -6,11 +6,13 @@ Having had some failed system updates on my MacBook Pro5,5 that caused Mac OS to Although this is certainly a size constraint, I keep majority of my large data elsewhere and can easily access them via remote sharing or various web interfaces, so it is a moot point. # The Notion -The original idea was to have three major partitions: Mac OS High Sierra, Arch Linux, and a shared partition that would store my user/home directory. The initial setup and install -- which took some time due to learning how to setup rEFInd and much fury at the more modern Disk Utility.app's insane pie chart partitioning system -- used HFS+ for High Sierra, Ext4 for Arch, and HFS+ for the shared partition. +The original idea was to have three major partitions: Mac OS High Sierra, Arch Linux, and a shared partition that would store my user/home directory. The reason for this is that I primarily do cross-platform development and would like my two preferred operating systems to be available during travel. + +The initial setup and install -- which took some time due to learning how to setup rEFInd and much fury at the more modern Disk Utility.app's insane pie chart partitioning system -- used HFS+ for High Sierra, ext4 for Arch, and HFS+ for the shared partition. [![The Dreaded Pie Chart](zfs-macos-arch-linux-dual-boot/dreaded-pie-chart.png)](zfs-macos-arch-linux-dual-boot/dreaded-pie-chart.png) -From Linux's perspective, the total partitions, with the important self-made ones noted, were: +From Linux's perspective, the total partitions, with the important three noted, were: | # | Name | Description | FS | Size | |-----|------------|-----------------------------------|------------|----------| @@ -18,14 +20,14 @@ From Linux's perspective, the total partitions, with the important self-made one | 2 | **Tyger** | High Sierra system partition | HFS+ | 36.6 GB | | 3 | Recovery HD| High Sierra recovery partition | Apple boot | 619.9 MB | | 4 | **Lyon** | Shared partition | ? | 55.9 GB | -| 5 | **Lyger** | Arch Linux system partition | EXT4 | 18.3 GB | +| 5 | **Lyger** | Arch Linux system partition | ext4 | 18.3 GB | Before and after each of the Tyger, Lyon, and Lyger partitions I also placed 128MB of free space as per Apple's recommendations. # The Problem After the initial install of both Arch Linux and Mac OS -- along with rEFInd -- I was met with a potential problem. HFS+ write access under Linux is experimental and must be enabled with the force option during mount. Although I was uncertain as to what potential issues could arise from forcing R/W HFS+ access, as it seemed to work during initial tests, I did not feel comfortable with keeping HFS+ as the shared partition in the event of file loss or corruption. -After an initial review of the potentially shared options of NTFS, HFS+ R/W or using EXT4 via FUSE on Mac OS, I came to the conclusion that none of these were very good options. In the case of HFS+, it was uncertain what extended use would lead to, and in the case of EXT4, the only reliable EXT3/EXT4 R/W "driver" came at a bit of a cost (not much, by any means). NTFS was denied on the principle of it -- if I was triple booting, NTFS might have been the choice, although permission incompatibility would probably deny the shared user directory design. +After an initial review of the potentially shared options of NTFS, HFS+ R/W or using ext4 via FUSE on Mac OS, I came to the conclusion that none of these were very good options. In the case of HFS+, it was uncertain what extended use would lead to, and in the case of ext4, the only reliable ext3/ext4 R/W "driver" came at a bit of a cost (not much, by any means). NTFS was denied on the principle of it -- if I was triple booting, NTFS might have been the choice, although permission incompatibility would probably deny the shared user directory design. With this, I then thought of another project I was working on...