--- Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 02:52:14PM -0700, Mefford, > Aaron wrote: > > I realize that I am new to the list and do not > have much history, > > but I am considering the possibility of using > vserver on a fairly > > large project and as such would like to at least > take a moment > > to offer my opinion on a couple of items. > > I'm just curious: how did you find your way to the > list? > > > First, I almost walked away from using the vserver > option until > > after joining the list I saw that the quota issue > was being actively > > addressed. Of the todo's left, quota was the > biggest gap for my > > application. It would be excellent to see the > others addressed but > > without quota it would not be an option. > > - so you actually require quota for your 'project'? > - would you like to help us with the quota issue? > - what about doing some testing? > > > As to the specific post, I am not sure that the > hard line of not > > overbooking is a good idea. While for many > applications it > > would be a correct solution there are some where > it will not. > > > Every ISP over allocates their available > resources. > > unfortunately that's true ... > > > People do not care to pay for dedicated resources. > > > hmm, I think that depends on the clientele ... > > > Additionally, with most services now being offered > via resellers, > > it seems unreasonable to not allow the reseller > the same option. > > For instance, if I sell virtual private servers, > and joe buys a > > VPS with the intention of selling individual web > sites run within > > the VPS, I may or may not want to allow Joe to > oversubscribe his > > disk space, possibly even on a per VPS basis. > > > > I realize that implementing a solution that would > support a > > hybrid approach raises the complexity, but I > wanted to state > > that there is value and need for such an approach. > > what do you mean by hybrid approach? > - that you would be able to set quota or leave it > unset? > - that you set the quota, but it might be ignored? > > >>> - how to handle context quota violations within > the kernel > >>> for users which do not exceed their personal > quota? > >>> Simply report you exceeded your quota, and on > check report > >>> that still space/quota is left? > >> > >> IMHO, It should not be possible for a context to > exceed it's quota when > >> some users have not. This is the point of quota > mechanism. Guarantee > >> space on the disk and not allow for over-booking. > Allocated user quota > >> should be subtracted from the total context > quota, so that any users > >> with no quota should not be able to use that > space. So in a way, users > > hmm, that might be the original idea of quota, but > all current implementations do not guarantee, but > only > limit the maximum available resources ... > > if you want to guarantee, you then simply must do > the > math an make sure that enough physical disk space is > available (or in the context case, the context quota > lies above the sum of all user quotas) > > >> with quota will have their space, while other > users will share what is > >> left. It is the only way to guarantee file > allocation. > >> > >> So, if context has 1Gig, and we allocate 300megs > to users, all the other > >> users will get at max 700megs. > > best, > Herbert >
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
