From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Clemens Eisserer Subject: Re: journal size reiserfs vs reiser4 Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 11:29:47 +0200 Message-ID: <194f6255050904022932ca34ea@mail.gmail.com> References: <4317FD1B.504@namesys.com> <431A5E43.4060005@slaphack.com> <431A6E71.4060105@namesys.com> Reply-To: linuxhippy@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <431A6E71.4060105@namesys.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: reiserfs-list@namesys.com Well, it sounds a bit like a microsoft manager explaining why XP-Home has no terminal server features ;-) I think an mkfs-option would be best, with a warning if the value given by the user is nonsence (3-8% ok?). On the contrary a 500GB hard drive with normal files on it would not benefit too much just because 25GB are free? lg Clemens > This is a bit arrogant, but I believe that a user that does not know how > to recompile the kernel with the #define changed is not sophisticated > enough to know how much he is going to hurt his performance by going > from 95% to 99% space used, and a user who does not want to bother with > recompiling is not going to study the topic enough to realize he is > making a mistake 80% of the time. It is important to know when > designing a product when your users intuitions are going to be wrong > 80%of the time, and while one should always be slow to reach such a > conclusion, I think this is such a case.