| 1 |
On 24/04/2013 11:27, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:50:11 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Then I want to tell the system how much storage I want for what purpose. |
| 5 |
>> If Joe Blow is to get 20G of storage for his ~, I want to tell the |
| 6 |
>> system there is a thing called joeb and it has a hard quota of 20G. The |
| 7 |
>> software must then go and do all the magic, because I am tired of doing |
| 8 |
>> the magic myself. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> It's a shame there appears to be no equivalent of a soft quota in ZFS. |
| 11 |
> Maybe it is the use of the term quota that is misleading, when in reality |
| 12 |
> it is more akin to volume size. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
"quota" is this context is indeed a misleading term. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Volume size so far fits my needs just fine, but that's because I've |
| 17 |
never needed quotas as such. I find quotas too inflexible anyway, it's a |
| 18 |
case of forcing a simplistic hardware rule into the human space and that |
| 19 |
never really solves the problem properly. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The problem quotas try to solve is "don't let users use more than their |
| 22 |
fair share of stuff; all the kids must play nicely on the playground" |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
>> I suppose the main attraction can be summed up thusly: ZFS lets me stop |
| 27 |
>> being the human in a place where a computer belongs :-) |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> +1 on all but the quota thing. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 36 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives