Richard L. Hamilton wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I'm new to ZFS but I'm intrigued by the possibilities >> it presents. >> >> I'm told one of the greatest benefits is that, >> instead of setting >> quotas, each user can have their own 'filesystem' >> under a single pool. >> >> This is obviously great if you've got 10 users but >> what if you have >> 10,000? Are the overheads too great and do they >> outweigh the potential >> benefits? >> >> I've got a test system running with 5,000 dummy users >> which seems to >> perform fine, even if my 'df' output is a little >> sluggish :-) . >> >> Any advice or experiences would be greatly >> appreciated. >> > > I think sharemgr was created to speed up the case of sharing out very > high numbers of filesystems on NFS servers, which otherwise took > quite a long time. > > That's not to say that there might not be other problems with scaling to > thousands of filesystems. But you're certainly not the first one to test it. > > For cases where a single filesystem must contain files owned by > multiple users (/var/mail being one example), old fashioned > UFS quotas still solve the problem where the alternative approach > with ZFS doesn't. > > This seems to come up over and over, and while I haven't had a need to implement it yet I probably will eventually. I don't like the 1ZFS/User idea either, and I've just been thinking that user/group quotas would eventually be available, probably before I needed them.
But even with the demand shown by these posts, I don't see mention of anyone working on this. Is there some technical difference with ZFS that makes a normal user/group quota impossible? Or is there a general feeling that it's an icky idea and (for some reason?) something to be avoided at all costs? Or is it on the list of things to add, and we just haven't made it to it yet? I'm ok with the last option. It's the first 2 that I don't like. :) It just seems that a lot of effort has gone into making performance improvements, and new utilities like the 'sharemgr' that Richard mentions, all to work around the lack of user/group quotas?? It's starting to look like it might have just been easier to implement the quotas from the beginning. -Kyle > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > 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
