Re: journal size reiserfs vs reiser4

[michael chang <thenewme91@gmail.com>]

On 9/6/05, Tom Vier <tmv@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 08:48:01PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > 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
> 
> I think it's pretty inconvenient to have to change that and rebuild the
> kernel (possibly voiding a vendor's warrenty) just to change the reserve %.
> ext2/3 has always had it tunable. As long as a reasonable % is chosen, few
> will bother to change it. What if your file server is almost full, but you
> can't get funding for more drives for a couple months? You have to rebuild
> your kernel if you just want to use another 2%?
> 
> Rebuilding a kernel is no big deal for me, but it is for others, and not
> just because of lack of ability. I'm sure there are situations where you
> can't just plop in a new kernel (company security policies, support
> contracts, etc), no matter how easy it is to build.
> 
> 
> My vote: put the reserve % in the superblock (if it isn't already) and
> give mkfs a sane default.
> 

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?

-- 
~Mike
 - Just my two cents
 - No man is an island, and no man is unable.