From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Masover Subject: Re: journal size reiserfs vs reiser4 Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 11:42:21 -0500 Message-ID: <431B23ED.7070505@slaphack.com> References: <4317FD1B.504@namesys.com> <431A5E43.4060005@slaphack.com> <431A6E71.4060105@namesys.com> <194f6255050904022932ca34ea@mail.gmail.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: <194f6255050904022932ca34ea@mail.gmail.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: linuxhippy@gmail.com Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.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.