| 1 |
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:08:12 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > It's a shame there appears to be no equivalent of a soft quota in ZFS. |
| 4 |
> > Maybe it is the use of the term quota that is misleading, when in |
| 5 |
> > reality it is more akin to volume size. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> "quota" is this context is indeed a misleading term. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Volume size so far fits my needs just fine, but that's because I've |
| 10 |
> never needed quotas as such. I find quotas too inflexible anyway, it's a |
| 11 |
> case of forcing a simplistic hardware rule into the human space and that |
| 12 |
> never really solves the problem properly. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Sometimes a simplistic rule is what's needed. If you are selling off-site |
| 15 |
storage in 1GB chunks, you need to stop people using more than they have |
| 16 |
paid for. Hard quotas do this, soft quotas let you warn them first, |
| 17 |
before things get broken. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> The problem quotas try to solve is "don't let users use more than their |
| 20 |
> fair share of stuff; all the kids must play nicely on the playground" |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
That sounds reasonable to me. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
ISDN: It Still Does Nothing |
Archives