On 2018-08-09 19:35, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 8/10/18 1:48 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 22:32:07 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
2) Different limitations on exclusive/shared bytes
Btrfs can set different limit on exclusive/shared bytes, further
complicating the problem.
3) Btrfs quota only accounts data/metadata used by the subvolume
It lacks all the shared trees (mentioned below), and in fact such
shared tree can be pretty large (especially for extent tree and csum
tree).
I'm not sure about the implications, but just to clarify some things:
when limiting somebody's data space we usually don't care about the
underlying "savings" coming from any deduplicating technique - these are
purely bonuses for system owner, so he could do larger resource overbooking.
In reality that's definitely not the case.
From what I see, most users would care more about exclusively used space
(excl), other than the total space one subvolume is referring to (rfer).
The most common case is, you do a snapshot, user would only care how
much new space can be written into the subvolume, other than the total
subvolume size.
I would really love to know exactly who these users are, because it
sounds to me like you've heard from exactly zero people who are
currently using conventional quotas to impose actual resource limits on
other filesystems (instead of just using them for accounting, which is a
valid use case but not what they were originally designed for).
So - the limit set on any user should enforce maximum and absolute space
he has allocated, including the shared stuff. I could even imagine that
creating a snapshot might immediately "eat" the available quota. In a
way, that quota returned matches (give or take) `du` reported usage,
unless "do not account reflinks withing single qgroup" was easy to implemet.
In fact, that's the case. In current implementation, accounting on
extent is the easiest (if not the only) way to implement.
I.e.: every shared segment should be accounted within quota (at least once).
Already accounted, at least for rfer.
And the numbers accounted should reflect the uncompressed sizes.
No way for current extent based solution.
While this may be true, this would be a killer feature to have.
Moreover - if there would be per-subvolume RAID levels someday, the data
should be accouted in relation to "default" (filesystem) RAID level,
i.e. having a RAID0 subvolume on RAID1 fs should account half of the
data, and twice the data in an opposite scenario (like "dup" profile on
single-drive filesystem).
No possible again for current extent based solution.
In short: values representing quotas are user-oriented ("the numbers one
bought"), not storage-oriented ("the numbers they actually occupy").
Well, if something is not possible or brings so big performance impact,
there will be no argument on how it should work in the first place.
Thanks,
Qu
