Re: journal size reiserfs vs reiser4

[David Masover <ninja@slaphack.com>]

michael chang wrote:
> On 9/4/05, David Masover <ninja@slaphack.com> wrote:
> 
>>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?
> 
> 
> When maybe we'd need to change the metadata.  Even in ext2/3 you can
> only modify this by "tuning" the fs.
> 
> 
>>>>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.
> 
> 
> I agree here, and anyone who disagrees is either weird, or lacks
> common sense.

That's not an argument.  As we learned in Philosophy class, that is 
called "begging the question."

I'm betting that a user who wants to tune this and understands what it 
means won't want to have to recompile just to test out a new setting, 
and a user who doesn't understand the mistake they are making probably 
won't be able to change a menuconfig option, a mount option, or a tunefs 
option by themself anyway.  And, if they do, they should realize that it 
can be dangerous and/or stupid to tweak these things -- after all, some 
options still in menuconfig can cause massive fs corruption, and say so.

And, anyone who disagrees with me must lack common sense :P