> On 04 Nov 2016, at 19:24, Richard Elling <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> On Nov 4, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Ben RUBSON <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >>> On 04 Nov 2016, at 19:13, Richard Elling <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 4, 2016, at 11:11 AM, MrRakeshsank . <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> any one has any ideas on it? Thanks! >>> >>> Why would you want a "logical size" quota as opposed to the currently >>> implemented >>> "allocation size" quota? >> >> I admit I would be interested in this feature too : a user needs 10GB, >> you give him 10GB through a "logical" quota, >> and as a storage admin you enable compression to better handle your storage, >> being able to address more users, then reducing costs. >> Interesting :) > > indeed :-) > > But while this simple example might work for a compression-only environment, > its core > concepts are utterly destroyed snapshots, clones, and dedup are used.
We could have a userquota based on logical size, a sort of new "userlogicalquota". As userquota do not include snapshots etc... I think it should be something possible. > A better idea is to bill for logical size, constrain with allocation size. Yes. I also have some users who need an allocation hard limit, so I have to disable compression for them, in order to avoid billing surprises... ------------------------------------------- openzfs-developer Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/274414/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/274414/28015062-cce53afa Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=28015062&id_secret=28015062-f966d51c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
