michael chang wrote: > On 9/6/05, David Masover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
