From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: journal size reiserfs vs reiser4 Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 10:27:45 -0700 Message-ID: <43173A11.2000801@namesys.com> References: <20050901134604.31ddd297@SiRiUS.home> <20050901144842.34629bcf@SiRiUS.home> <4316F9CC.2090904@namesys.com> <20050901150507.3d6f53c7@SiRiUS.home> <4316FD28.5020304@redhat.com> <43171D57.3030007@namesys.com> <431726F2.1090508@redhat.com> <43173463.40302@slaphack.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <43173463.40302@slaphack.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: David Masover Cc: Peter Staubach , vs@namesys.com, reiserfs-list@namesys.com David Masover wrote: > Peter Staubach wrote: > >> Hans Reiser wrote: >> >>> Research for filesystems generally says that as you get more than 85% >>> full the performance goes down, by a lot as you get close to 100%. 5% >>> is probably too little rather than too much. >>> >>> >> >> Wow. What is all that space used for? Other journalling file >> systems that >> I have seen have limited things like journals to a much smaller space, > BSD FFS has a 10% limit unless you are root. They are correct to do so.