Darren J Moffat wrote: > Mark Maybee wrote: > >> + refreserv=size | none > > > Do you really need to abbreviate this, I had to read this three times > before I could work out what it was (I kept thinking serve what ?). > Maybe "refreserved" instead (ie create not creat :-)).
How about "refreservation", which matches the current "reservation" property and the "refquota"/"quota" scheme? > > I'm also having a hard time working out what the interaction between the > existing "quota" and "reserveration" properties are and these ones. I > don't think the text in the man page is sufficient to allow people to > work out what combinations of quota/refquota they need to set. Maybe > some more examples would help. > > Is there a case where you would want to set both quota and refquota ? If > not would it make sense to have a "quotatype" property instead that > determined if the quota included snapshots and descendents. Setting both quota and refquota would be useful in a university environment, where refquota is what limits a user's active dataset, and the (presumably larger) quota limits the dataset+snapshots. One way to think of this is that quota/reservation are for sysadmins and refquota/refreservation are for end users. > > I know that "referenced" is the correct ZFS term but I'm not sure it is > a term that users/admins can easily relate to. I can't at the moment > come up with a better naming scheme though - so unless anyone else can > I'm okay for this case to be approved with the current naming. > We wanted to link the naming to the "referenced" property, since that's what shows up in "zfs list" and "zfs get" output, and the byte count comparisions are done against that value. -Chris
