michael chang wrote: > On 9/2/05, Matt Stegman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That said, I'd be half-satisfied if a repacker is released months or > years earlier because it doesn't efficiently handle weird cases (so > long as it remembers to try and repack free space too). As for the 5% > error; a warning is safer. Either that, or put in a force option to > get around the "error". A mount option specifying the amount of space to reserve? You probably don't want to disable the limit altogether. Some people might go the other way, forcing at least 15-25% of the disk to be free for performance reasons. I think the mount option is safest, and certainly safer than trying to do this per-process.
