Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and disk usage management?
Kyle McDonald wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> I assume that ZFS quotas are enforced even if the current >>> size and space free is not included in the user visible 'df'. >>> Is that not true? >>> >>> Presumably applications get some unexpected error when the >>> quota limit is hit since the client OS does not know the real >>> amount of space free. >>> >> In my experience, I simply couldn't implement Solaris-level quotas at >> all for ZFS filesystems. >> >> > That's my understanding also. I'm not clear (but I think I can guess) on > the exact difference between reservations, and quotas but from what I > understand ZFS implements it's own 'Tree Quotas' , that limit the space > consumed by a directory and everything below it. It does not > (currently?) support a tradtional unix "User/Group Quotas", where the > space consumed by files owned by a user or group are limited no matter > where in the file system the are located. Here's a good description of ZFS quotas and reservations: http://blogs.sun.com/markm/category/ZFS We have since added refquota and refreservation, which do not include the space consumed by snapshots. -Chris ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and disk usage management?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I assume that ZFS quotas are enforced even if the current >> size and space free is not included in the user visible 'df'. >> Is that not true? >> >> Presumably applications get some unexpected error when the >> quota limit is hit since the client OS does not know the real >> amount of space free. >> > > In my experience, I simply couldn't implement Solaris-level quotas at > all for ZFS filesystems. > > That's my understanding also. I'm not clear (but I think I can guess) on the exact difference between reservations, and quotas but from what I understand ZFS implements it's own 'Tree Quotas' , that limit the space consumed by a directory and everything below it. It does not (currently?) support a tradtional unix "User/Group Quotas", where the space consumed by files owned by a user or group are limited no matter where in the file system the are located. I don't think User/Group quotas have been ruled out, or are technically not feasible. If I recallcorrectly, I think they have just been left on the low priority list since the consensus of the developers is that Tree quotas are enough for now, especially if you follow the advice to create a ZFS for each user. This works fine for Home Dirs since for the most part only one user will be writing below that directory. However this doesn't really help where you want multiple users or groups to write to the same dir. tree, and want to stop the users or groups from consuming all the space and blocking the others from using the share space. -Kyle > johnS > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and disk usage management?
> I assume that ZFS quotas are enforced even if the current > size and space free is not included in the user visible 'df'. > Is that not true? > > Presumably applications get some unexpected error when the > quota limit is hit since the client OS does not know the real > amount of space free. In my experience, I simply couldn't implement Solaris-level quotas at all for ZFS filesystems. johnS ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and disk usage management?
On Mon, 5 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The problem is the fact that NFS mounts cannot be done across > filesystems as implemented with ZFS and Solaris 10. For example, we have > client machines mounting to /groups/accounting... but we also have > clients mounting to /groups directly. On my system I have a /home filesystem, and then I have additional logical-per user filesystems underneath. I know that I can mount /home directly but I currently automount the per-user filesystems since otherwise user permissions and filesystem quotas are not visible to the client for anything other than Solaris 10. I assume that ZFS quotas are enforced even if the current size and space free is not included in the user visible 'df'. Is that not true? Presumably applications get some unexpected error when the quota limit is hit since the client OS does not know the real amount of space free. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS and disk usage management?
After struggling for some time to try and wedge a ZFS file server into our environment, I have come to the conclusion that I'm simply going to have to live without quotas. They have been immensely useful in the past 5 years or so in allowing us to keep track of which groups are hogging disk space, and even finding a bug in one manufacturing/engineering tool which occasionally crashed in a way which generated 4GB files when it did. The problem is the fact that NFS mounts cannot be done across filesystems as implemented with ZFS and Solaris 10. For example, we have client machines mounting to /groups/accounting... but we also have clients mounting to /groups directly. I know the zfs answer/dogma is "automounts", but it's not that simple. I have no good way to know what is being mounted in which manner (blame the NAS 5320's boatload of bugs there... I could go on and on there in a curse-filled tirade), so the only real way to know is to migrate and find out what breaks. Not good. Furthermore, there is no reasonable "fix", anyway, other than some serious automount voodoo. So, this means making the zfs filesystems at the /groups level instead of the /groups/accounting level as I had expected to do... meaning we can't implement quotas in any reasonable manner that I know of. That given, so I have any good options for monitoring usage of subdirectories within my ZFS filesystems without going through a "du -sh /groups/*" every night? It sure seems like a kludge. thanks johnS ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
