According to the man page - but I have no idea how/why... ________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of solarflow99 Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:17 AM To: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 (Tikanga) discussion mailing-list Subject: Re: [rhelv5-list] about ext3 tunable parameters(mount-countandreserved blocks) won't this allow the partition to become fragmented? On 1/4/08, Collins, Kevin [MindWorks] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The other thing to keep in mind is that the reserved blocks are reserved for root, which means that if its a filesystem primarily written to by root, the reserve does no good because root can fill it 100% anyway. Kevin -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Zavodsky, Daniel (GE Money) Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 11:56 PM To: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 (Tikanga) discussion mailing-list Subject: RE: [rhelv5-list] about ext3 tunable parameters (mount-countandreserved blocks) Hello, I am disabling forced e2fsck on ext3 file systems everywhere. As to reserved blocks percentage, 5% is the default so there is no need to specify this option if you want this setting. I would suggest lowering this value on big file systems (on one TB FS you get 50 GB less this way... which is not negligible) - you always have to ask yourself "What will happen if the space on this file system runs out?". For example on /var you would use slightly more reserved blocks and on /home you could disable the feature entirely. Regards, Daniel -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Jolle "sjolle" Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 7:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [rhelv5-list] about ext3 tunable parameters (mount-count andreserved blocks) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Red Hat Users We modify the following ext3 file system parameters: - - reserved-blocks-percentage = 5% - - never e2fsck at x mount-counts Whats the risk associated with this settings? Is this a good idea? cheers Simon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHfSPjEMN/lNE/wrwRAn1bAJ9J8s+YiCyD7pm/HdXj4ptGwUbD4QCfbneS vBM/J1QkNdCaJW8IT4Hh0ak= =mJ8o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list _______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list _______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
_______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
