On 2008-07-05 23:54, Matthew Dillon wrote: > :Well, internal hard disks under 100G are getting hard to find, so I doubt > :this is going to be a huge issue. It should be documented. > : > :There's also the possibility that things could be mounted under /, instead > :of multiple partitions. > > Yah. I think what we are moving towards is more of a one or > two-filesystem model (I think having a separate root is still important), > but to make it totally practical we need to be able to set overall > space limits on a per-PFS basis. (PFS == HAMMER's pseudo filesystems). > > This won't happen in the first release but it certainly isn't hard > to accomplish. The advantage of it is that limits applied to PFSs > are soft and could be adjusted up or down at any time. And since > we support 65536 PFSs per HAMMER filesystem the whole mechanism could > be used to soft-partition a huge filesystem for use by different > machines / departments / users / whatever. > > No, no quotas for HAMMER yet :-) I just don't think that stuff belongs > in the filesystem. We need a generic quota and MAC layer in the kernel > proper. The MAC layer implemented in FreeBSD is horrible, I think > we could do a lot better particularly with PFS to rough-cut the > security domains.
Question: Is there a minimum recommended size of a PFS, or could you create one per user? While it is not a complete replacement for quota it would at least solve some of the same problems. -- Erik Wikström