On 27 October 2015 at 17:28, Simon Thompson (Research Computing - IT Services) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > If we have replication enabled on a file, does the size from ls -l or du > return the actual file size, or the replicated file size (I.e. Twice the > actual size)?. > > From experimentation, it appears to be double the actual size, I.e. Taking > into account replication of 2. > > This appears to mean that quotas have to be double what we actually want to > take account of the replication factor. > > Is this correct?
This is what we obverse here by default and currently have to double our fileset quotas to take this is to account on replicated filesystems. You've reminded me that I was going to ask this list if it's possible to report the un-replicated sizes? While the quota management is only a slight pain, what's reported to the user is more of a problem for us(e.g. via SMB share / df ). We're considering replicating a lot more of our filesystems and it would be useful if it didn't appear that everyones quotas had just doubled overnight. Thanks, Dan. -- Dan Foster | Senior Storage Systems Administrator | IT Services _______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
