Chris Kirby wrote: > 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?
Seems fine to me. > >> >> 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. Could you provide an example please. Is it an error to set refquota higher than quota ? >> 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. Okay fair enough. -- Darren J Moffat
