per, >We can argue back and forth on the pros and cons of building >1TB >partitions or not, but the need for these giant allocations are real >enough and from a commen/broader view (small business) the demand is >also moving closer and closer. At work we have a disk-to-disk backup >server for (for customers) with one 1.5TB (SATA raid5) backup partition. >The app works that way and if each customer start using it and used >=<20GB per customer, we would need at least 3.5TB more disk space. >Breaking up in smaller chunks is not always possible/practical. > >I would appresiate an "unlimited" filesystem one day - but not at the >cost of potentially losing data! >I would also just love to see "OpenBSD large-scale enterprise SAN/NAS >solutions" in the LISA program some day :)
i remember when i used to submit jobs to clusters that different users would have home directories on different nfs mounts. i fail to see why you couldn't do something along these lines with the setup you describe, i.e. make 5 300GB partitions and allocate some fixed amount of space to each user, limiting the number of user accounts on each partition. i can certainly see how this would be annoying from a scalability standpoint, but how often are you changing user storage limits? it would, however, be most convenient to just have one huge-ass partition :). cheers, jake
