From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: michael chang Subject: Re: journal size reiserfs vs reiser4 Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:32:54 -0400 Message-ID: References: <4317FD1B.504@namesys.com> <431A5E43.4060005@slaphack.com> <431A6E71.4060105@namesys.com> <20050906135951.GA12333@zero> 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: <20050906135951.GA12333@zero> Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Tom Vier Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Hans Reiser On 9/6/05, Tom Vier 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 ho= w > > to recompile the kernel with the #define changed is not sophisticated >=20 > 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, fe= w > will bother to change it. What if your file server is almost full, but yo= u > can't get funding for more drives for a couple months? You have to rebuil= d > your kernel if you just want to use another 2%? >=20 > 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. >=20 >=20 > My vote: put the reserve % in the superblock (if it isn't already) and > give mkfs a sane default. >=20 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? --=20 ~Mike - Just my two cents - No man is an island, and no man is unable.