Re: too strict on min disk free alarm? (5%/300GB drive)
- From: anonb6e9@xxxxxxx (Name withheld by request)
- Date: 15 Nov 2007 15:58:22 GMT
In article <1195073728.805524@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Name withheld by request <anonb6e9@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is a filesystem question, but I could not find an appropriate
newsgroup - pls suggest one, thx.
We have an appliaction owner that claims our corporate standard of
telephoning them at all hours day or night, when the
disk is more that 95% full is out-dated for any drive that is over
100GB or so.
He argues that the filesystem (NTFS) on his server's 300GB drive can
still operate efficiently when it is 97 or 98% full. Is this
correct?
One reason to keep some free space is that recursively changing
the permissions on a directory requires some free space on the
drive w/that dir - apparently the perms change needs to write
something (temp files?) to the drive other than just security
descriptors.
I learned this the hard way, on a 600GB drive. Ten minutes or so,
after issuing a command to recursively change the permissions of a dir
with several 100GB worth of files, the command errored out, and
explorer.exe died on the console of our production server. I was able
to ctrl-alt-del, to bring up task manager and gracefully reboot. It
turns out the disk was full at some point during the command.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: too strict on min disk free alarm? (5%/300GB drive)
- From: SBS Rocker
- Re: too strict on min disk free alarm? (5%/300GB drive)
- References:
- too strict on min disk free alarm? (5%/300GB drive)
- From: Name withheld by request
- too strict on min disk free alarm? (5%/300GB drive)
- Prev by Date: Re: Server 2008 virtualisation
- Next by Date: Re: NT tools
- Previous by thread: Re: too strict on min disk free alarm? (5%/300GB drive)
- Next by thread: Re: too strict on min disk free alarm? (5%/300GB drive)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
