From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Vladimir V. Saveliev" <vs@namesys.com>
Subject: Re: journal size reiserfs vs reiser4
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:37:52 +0400
Message-ID: <43170430.2080602@namesys.com>
References: <20050901134604.31ddd297@SiRiUS.home>	<20050901144842.34629bcf@SiRiUS.home>	<4316F9CC.2090904@namesys.com> <20050901150507.3d6f53c7@SiRiUS.home> <4316FD28.5020304@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <reiserfs-list-return-25787-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: <4316FD28.5020304@redhat.com>
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Peter Staubach <staubach@redhat.com>
Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com

Hello

Peter Staubach wrote:
> 
>>> 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?
> 
No. of course.

reiser4 should be more careful about calculation of reserved space.

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

I guess there was some discussion of this problem at the beginning of reiser4.
The solution, however, looks like nobody was able to come up with something reasonable.