From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Staubach <staubach@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: journal size reiserfs vs reiser4
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 09:07:52 -0400
Message-ID: <4316FD28.5020304@redhat.com>
References: <20050901134604.31ddd297@SiRiUS.home>	<20050901144842.34629bcf@SiRiUS.home>	<4316F9CC.2090904@namesys.com> <20050901150507.3d6f53c7@SiRiUS.home>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <reiserfs-list-return-25782-reiserfs=m.gmane.org@namesys.com>
list-help: <mailto:reiserfs-list-help@namesys.com>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:reiserfs-list-unsubscribe@namesys.com>
list-post: <mailto:reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Errors-To: flx@namesys.com
In-Reply-To: <20050901150507.3d6f53c7@SiRiUS.home>
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: vs@namesys.com
Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com


>>reiser4 reserves 5% of disk space for its internal needs.
>>

5% of today's big disks seems a little excessive.  Does reiser4 really need
that much space or would less also suffice without compromising performance?

Is there research available which makes up the basis for the 5% number?

    Thanx...

       ps