> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 11:49:55AM +0000, Tim Bannister wrote: > > > In summary, I think NILFS is fantastic in short bursts of heavy pressure > > > so long as space isn't exhausted. > > > OK, but if exhausting the space leads to unrecoverable / difficult-to-fix > > data loss then it's a poor choice of filesystem for uses where a full > > filesystem is unlikely but remains a possibility (eg a mail spool). If > > /var/tmp shouldn't be on NILFS then probably /var shouldn't be on NILFS > > either. … > Perhaps one area where NILFS could be improved is in handling of disk full > errors, for example, not allowing complete exhaustion of space unless a > cleaner is running. Lots of filesystems reserve a certain amount of space for root. I would extend this for NILFS2 to reserve some space for the cleaner daemon (perhaps with an ioctl that can be used by the daemon to bypass the restriction). Easier said than coded ;-) -- Tim Bannister IT Services The University of Manchester e: Tim.Bannister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
