From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: problem with reiser4 Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:06:31 -0800 Message-ID: <4224E767.5030908@namesys.com> References: <4224BA6B.7040402@iparadigms.com> <200503012007.53428.kde.sch@ttgen.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <200503012007.53428.kde.sch@ttgen.net> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Fred Schaettgen Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com Fred Schaettgen wrote: >On Tuesday 01 March 2005 19:54, fitzboy wrote: > > >>Hello all, >>I'm just switching from 2.4/reiser3 to 2.6/reiser4 on the first batch of >>machines. We are running a bunch of apple xRAIDs connected to Dell >>servers running Debian. we have the 2.6.10-mm kernel and we can make the >>reiser4 partitions, but there is a lot of lost space somewhere. If I >>create a reiser3 or xfs partition, I get 1.1T, but with reiser4 I can't >>get above 984GB. That is too much of a jump to be explained by overhead, >>so something is wrong... any thoughts? >> >> > >I'm not an expert, but isn't the free space just a a rough estimation? > Uh, no. >You >can't know in advance what the average file size will be etc. Maybe reiser4 >is just more conservative. What matters is how much data is actually stored >on the disk the moment it runs full. > > It is user error or a bug. He is saying the reported free space is less, and this should not be. Note that it could be a units of measurement issue also.... >Fred > > >