Re: journal size reiserfs vs reiser4

[David Masover <ninja@slaphack.com>]

Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> Well, it sounds a bit like a microsoft manager explaining why XP-Home
> has no terminal server features ;-)
> 
> I think an mkfs-option would be best, with a warning if the value
> given by the user is nonsence (3-8% ok?).

Is there a reason we need to specify this at mkfs time?  What about a 
mount option?

It seems that if you could do this in the kernel source, you could 
certainly do it at mount-time, per-fs.  In other words, it seems that 
it's not something which needs to be specified in the FS format itself.

>>This is a bit arrogant, but I believe that a user that does not know how
>>to recompile the kernel with the #define changed is not sophisticated
>>enough to know how much he is going to hurt his performance by going
>>from 95% to 99% space used, and a user who does not want to bother with
>>recompiling is not going to study the topic enough to realize he is
>>making a mistake 80% of the time.  It is important to know when
>>designing a product when your users intuitions are going to be wrong
>>80%of the time, and while one should always be slow to reach such a
>>conclusion, I think this is such a case.

And yet, there are still plenty of options in the kernel, in mount 
options and in menuconfig, which are dangerous and almost never right.