On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 03:43:04PM -0700, Edward Siefker wrote: > Thanks so much for the explanation. Personally I'm of the opinion > that free space is wasted space, so I'll probably opt for the last > option.
Don't forget that most filesystems suffer performance degradation when they're low on space. I don't know what counts as "low" for ext2/3 though. You'll likely encounter extreme fragmentation if you regularly fill up all the available space. > How low can I set it before I risk data corruption? My drive has > an 8mb cache so should I set it to 8mb? Or is that something > different entirely? That's entirely different, if I understand it correctly. The buffer being discussed is an OS-level buffer. I don't think the drive's buffer has an effect here, since the drive isn't responsible for allocating space within the filesystem. According to a later post from Jari, the issue is actually fixed in "current code", so you can probably set this as low as you like. > I don't want to go to far off topic, but why is this an issue in > the first place? It seems to me that if you ever silently corrupt > data, something is broken. Is it linux that's broken, or the file > system, or is it the hard disk? Jari's post suggests it was a bug in rtorrent (or libtorrent), in that it didn't correctly take into account the unusual semantics of mmap'd sparsed files. Now it does, by switching to a slow-but-safe method of writing the data to disc. _______________________________________________ Libtorrent-devel mailing list [email protected] http://rakshasa.no/mailman/listinfo/libtorrent-devel
