From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: michael chang Subject: Re: journal size reiserfs vs reiser4 Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 08:14:28 -0400 Message-ID: References: <4317FD1B.504@namesys.com> Reply-To: thenewme91@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Matt Stegman Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com On 9/3/05, michael chang wrote: > 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". To clearify, I was referring to being able to bypass a potential warning on less than 5% free ON TOP OF THE 5% THAT IS RESERVED BY REISER4 in the REPACKER. Of course, the 5% already reserved, I believe, is important - reserving 7.5 or 10% wouldn't kill anyone either, IMO, unless they're on an embedded system (but that has it's own issues entirely anyhoo). --=20 ~Mike - Just my two cents - No man is an island, and no man is unable.