From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Masover Subject: Re: journal size reiserfs vs reiser4 Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:03:57 -0500 Message-ID: <431E043D.7030206@slaphack.com> References: <4317FD1B.504@namesys.com> <431A5E43.4060005@slaphack.com> <431A6E71.4060105@namesys.com> <20050906135951.GA12333@zero> <431E0003.2080003@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: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: thenewme91@gmail.com Cc: Tom Vier , reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Hans Reiser michael chang wrote: > On 9/6/05, David Masover wrote: > >>michael chang wrote: >> >> >>>Okay, this sounds sane, but at the same time, from a implementational >>>point of view, how do you tell which blocks are reserved and which >>>arent? >> >>I thought it wasn't specific blocks, but rather a certain number of >>blocks (any blocks) which must be free in order for any write to >>succeed. Which is why it makes more sense to me as a mount option. >> > > > Oh okay then. That sounds better - it's not like NTFS's MFT area > designation (very annoying). Of course, we'd all like it better if > this space is contiguous, but anywhere is fine, so long as the > benefits are retained, I guess. (Besides, if the space *isn't* > contiguous, logically, it _should_ be possible to make it > semi-contigous with the repacker, provided enough space (hopefully > this requirement will be very low) exists to repack in the first > place.) Which is already somewhat guarenteed by the reserved free space.