> On Mar 15, 2018, at 1:30 PM, Mike Gerdts <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Matthew Ahrens <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Yes, I agree and that all sounds great (including "zfs set > refreservation=auto" to get back to the originally-computed refreservation). > A shame that we didn't catch this when implementing "zfs clone" back in the > day. > > I assume that refreservation will continue to be a non-inheritable property, > and that "refreservation=auto" is just a shortcut for "refreservation=123GB" > (or whatever the right number is). So if you set it to "auto", "zfs get" > will show "123GB". And changing the volsize will do whatever it does today. > > Pretty much, but currently you can't set refreservation to a value greater > than volsize. The largest explicit value that is allowed is still volsize.
That is a simple bug to fix and I thought we already had a fix, but perhaps only in ZoL? In any case, the fix needs to be in openzfs. IMHO, we really don't need to check the requested refreservation against volsize at all. -- richard > > > I assume for filesystems, "refreservation=auto" will not reserve any space. > > > My intent was to have refreservation=auto only supported on volumes, as there > is no auto value that makes sense for file systems. > > Mike > openzfs <https://openzfs.topicbox.com/latest> / openzfs-developer > <https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/members> / Permalink > <https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/Te3d593ba00521b6d-M9f602b3fe88eee7c88705c22>Delivery > options <https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups> ------------------------------------------ openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/discussions/Te3d593ba00521b6d-M4488dd5bba89d0b5fe5bc4aa Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups
