From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Masover Subject: Re: journal size reiserfs vs reiser4 Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:38:59 -0500 Message-ID: <431A5E43.4060005@slaphack.com> References: <4317FD1B.504@namesys.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: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: thenewme91@gmail.com Cc: Matt Stegman , reiserfs-list@namesys.com michael chang wrote: > On 9/2/05, Matt Stegman wrote: > That said, I'd be half-satisfied if a repacker is released months or > years earlier because it doesn't efficiently handle weird cases (so > long as it remembers to try and repack free space too). As for the 5% > error; a warning is safer. Either that, or put in a force option to > get around the "error". A mount option specifying the amount of space to reserve? You probably don't want to disable the limit altogether. Some people might go the other way, forcing at least 15-25% of the disk to be free for performance reasons. I think the mount option is safest, and certainly safer than trying to do this per-process.