On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:50:41AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 05:43:06AM +0000, John Long wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 09:48:44PM -0500, Nick Holland wrote: > > > On 02/23/16 14:42, John Long wrote: > > > > Is there any rule of thumb as to how full an ffs filesystem can be > > > > without > > > > impacting performance or integrity issues? > > > > > > The people who wrote the code set the limit at 95%...so if you are > > > looking for a "Rule of Thumb"...that's it, provided by the People Who > > > Know Best. > > > > > > Most of us have managed to fill a partition completely with no harm to > > > the system (no promises on the file!). But performance isn't our > > > concern at that point. File integrity isn't an issue until you try to > > > write when there is no space. > > > > > > But really, if you are dancing over the 95% point and are happy about > > > it, you have entered Special Case Land, rules of thumb don't apply and > > > you are responsible for your own situation. > > > > Thanks, this is good info. I need to get move some files around then. These > > little Lemote boxes are such nifty ftp servers I tend to keep piling things > > up on them. > > But note the minfree reserve for root only (see tunefs(8)) is > already set at 5% by default. If df(1) reports the fs is 100% full, > actually 5% room is left, for root only.
I remember that, thanks. Nice safety valve. /jl -- ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Powered by Lemote Fuloong against HTML e-mail X Loongson MIPS and OpenBSD and proprietary / \ http://www.mutt.org attachments / \ Code Blue or Go Home! Encrypted email preferred PGP Key 2048R/DA65BC04
