Lakshmipathi.G posted on Sat, 04 Feb 2017 08:25:04 +0530 as excerpted: >>Should quota support generally be disabled during balances? > > If this true and quota impacts balance throughput, at-least there should > an alert message like "Running Balance with quota will affect > performance" or similar before starting.
The problem isn't that, exactly, tho that's part of it. The problem with quotas is that the feature itself isn't yet mature. At least until very recently, and possibly still, quotas couldn't be depended upon to work correctly (various not entirely uncommon corner-cases would trigger negative numbers, etc), and even when they do work correctly, they simply don't scale well in combination with balance, check, etc -- that 10X difference isn't uncommon. So my recommendation for quotas has been and remains, unless you're actively working with the devs on improving them, it's probably better to keep them disabled. Either you actually need quota functionality or you don't. If you do, it's better to use a mature filesystem where quotas are a mature feature that works dependably. If you don't, just leave the feature off, as it continues to simply not be worth the troubles and scaling issues it triggers. IOW, btrfs quotas might work and scale well some day, but that day isn't today, and it's not going to be tomorrow or next kernel cycle, either. It's going to take awhile, and you'll be much happier with btrfs in the mean time if you don't have them enabled. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
