On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Jeffrey Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Derrick Brashear wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR) >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Jason Edgecombe writes: >>>> If we want to allow a negative quota to disable all writes, then I >>>> propose that we only allow -1. Then again, 1 is almost as effective >>>> assuming that the volume has a few files in it. >>> if you choose to go this route, then you will have a complete range of >>> negative quotas and cut the quota range in half. using a single bit from >>> the value range is wasteful -- there is no reason for quota to be signed. > > Agreed. The only problem is that the wire protocol defines the quota > to be signed. Changing to unsigned is a protocol change. > > When we add support for 64-bit volumes, then we should change the quota > interface at the same time to support 64-bit quotas. > >> Agreed. A quota of 1 should be fine for "no write": the directory >> object in an empty volume should be that big. > > Agreed. > >> I suppose I should try this. > > It will permit the ability to write 1MB. We could special case the > value 1 to mean do not permit the overage margin.
No, that'd be 1000 (or 1024 depending how you look at it). 1 is 1 *kb* -- Derrick _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
