> Richard Elling wrote: > > For ZFS, there are some features which conflict > with the > > notion of user quotas: compression, copies, and > snapshots come > > immediately to mind. UFS (and perhaps VxFS?) do > not have > > these features, so accounting space to users is > much simpler. > > Indeed, if was was easy to add to ZFS, then CR > 6557894 > > would have been closed long ago. Surely we can > describe the > > business problems previously solved by user-quotas > and then > > proceed to solve them? Mail is already solved. > > I just find it ironic that before ZFS I kept hearing > of people wanting > group quotas rather than user quotas. Now that we > have ZFS group quotas > are easy - quota the filesystem and ensure only that > group can write to > it - but now the focus is back on user quotas again > ;-) >
I hate to say that, but most of us didn't expect zfs takes possibility of user quotas away.. I am not sure "trading" one capability with the other is desired. Back to zfs' "filesystem is cheap" paradigm, it won't be complained so much if other facilities provided by OS (for example, automounter) scales equally well with zfs. Making other fs related facility fitting into the new paradigm would help much, at least I think.. Ivan. > -- > Darren J Moffat > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discu > ss This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
