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 16:41:43 -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: Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: gmaxwell@gmail.com Cc: Tom Vier , reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Hans Reiser On 9/6/05, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On 9/6/05, Tom Vier wrote: > > My vote: put the reserve % in the superblock (if it isn't already) and > > give mkfs a sane default. >=20 > Looking at the code it appears it would be easier to make it a mount > option that defaults to 5%. Would that work okay for you? >=20 I dunno about him, but I think it's okay -- provided that it doesn't screw up too bad. That said, more people are likely to fiddle with /etc/fstab than with fstune options... but that's an opinion. Either way, it would likely be good to mark it as a potentially dangerous or performance-deterring thing. And you don't want to reduce it so much that there's no room for metadata or space to write in order to delete if full. --=20 ~Mike - Just my two cents - No man is an island, and no man is unable.