Graham Leggett wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >> Well, seeing as any test you do will be befuddled by file compression >> on the >> volume you are writing and that trusting this information is foolhardy >> if there >> are multiple users of the device, I'd ask you to rethink the design >> before you >> create yet another set of "My drive has XXX free but the program >> crashes with >> a No Space Left message!!!" bug reports :) > > Trusting this information is obviously not foolproof, but using this to > define a high water mark, beyond which caching quietly stops (with a > logged explanation, of course) would be very useful, rather than rushing > headlong into the wall, as is down now. > > Call it a subtle and controlled degradation of service, if you will.
It seems that a more effective high-water mark is to set an upper bounds on the desired cache size.
