On 2018-08-12 03:04, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
12.08.2018 06:16, Chris Murphy пишет:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
Chris Murphy posted on Fri, 10 Aug 2018 12:07:34 -0600 as excerpted:
But whether data is shared or exclusive seems potentially ephemeral,
12.08.2018 10:04, Andrei Borzenkov пишет:
>
> On ZFS snapshots are contained in dataset and you limit total dataset
> space consumption including all snapshots. Thus end effect is the same -
> deleting data that is itself captured in snapshot does not make a single
> byte available. ZFS allows
12.08.2018 06:16, Chris Murphy пишет:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Chris Murphy posted on Fri, 10 Aug 2018 12:07:34 -0600 as excerpted:
>>
>>> But whether data is shared or exclusive seems potentially ephemeral, and
>>> not something a sysadmin should
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Chris Murphy posted on Fri, 10 Aug 2018 12:07:34 -0600 as excerpted:
>
>> But whether data is shared or exclusive seems potentially ephemeral, and
>> not something a sysadmin should even be able to anticipate let alone
>>
10.08.2018 12:33, Tomasz Pala пишет:
>
>> For 4 disk with 1T free space each, if you're using RAID5 for data, then
>> you can write 3T data.
>> But if you're also using RAID10 for metadata, and you're using default
>> inline, we can use small files to fill the free space, resulting 2T
>>
10.08.2018 21:21, Tomasz Pala пишет:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 07:39:30 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>
>>> I.e.: every shared segment should be accounted within quota (at least once).
>> I think what you mean to say here is that every shared extent should be
>> accounted to quotas for
10.08.2018 10:33, Tomasz Pala пишет:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 07:03:18 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>
>>> So - the limit set on any user
>>
>> Does btrfs support per-user quota at all? I am aware only of per-subvolume
>> quotas.
>
> Well, this is a kind of deceptive word usage in
Chris Murphy posted on Fri, 10 Aug 2018 12:07:34 -0600 as excerpted:
> But whether data is shared or exclusive seems potentially ephemeral, and
> not something a sysadmin should even be able to anticipate let alone
> individual users.
Define "user(s)".
Arguably, in the context of btrfs tool
On 2018-08-10 14:07, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 8/10/18 1:48 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 22:32:07 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
2) Different limitations on exclusive/shared bytes
Btrfs can set different limit on
On 2018-08-10 14:21, Tomasz Pala wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 07:39:30 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
I.e.: every shared segment should be accounted within quota (at least once).
I think what you mean to say here is that every shared extent should be
accounted to quotas for every
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 07:39:30 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>> I.e.: every shared segment should be accounted within quota (at least once).
> I think what you mean to say here is that every shared extent should be
> accounted to quotas for every location it is reflinked from. IOW, that
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 8/10/18 1:48 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 22:32:07 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>> 2) Different limitations on exclusive/shared bytes
>>>Btrfs can set different limit on exclusive/shared bytes, further
>>>
On 2018-08-09 13:48, Tomasz Pala wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 22:32:07 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
2) Different limitations on exclusive/shared bytes
Btrfs can set different limit on exclusive/shared bytes, further
complicating the problem.
3) Btrfs quota only accounts data/metadata
On 2018-08-09 19:35, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 8/10/18 1:48 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 22:32:07 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
2) Different limitations on exclusive/shared bytes
Btrfs can set different limit on exclusive/shared bytes, further
complicating the problem.
3)
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 15:55:46 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> The first thing about virtually every mechanism should be
>> discoverability and reliability. I expect my quota not to change without
>> my interaction. Never. How did you cope with this?
>> If not - how are you going to explain such
On 8/10/18 3:17 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 07:35:32 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>>> when limiting somebody's data space we usually don't care about the
>>> underlying "savings" coming from any deduplicating technique - these are
>>> purely bonuses for system owner, so he
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 07:03:18 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>> So - the limit set on any user
>
> Does btrfs support per-user quota at all? I am aware only of per-subvolume
> quotas.
Well, this is a kind of deceptive word usage in "post-truth" times.
In this case both "user" and "quota"
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 07:35:32 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> when limiting somebody's data space we usually don't care about the
>> underlying "savings" coming from any deduplicating technique - these are
>> purely bonuses for system owner, so he could do larger resource overbooking.
>
> In
On 8/10/18 1:48 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 22:32:07 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>> 2) Different limitations on exclusive/shared bytes
>>Btrfs can set different limit on exclusive/shared bytes, further
>>complicating the problem.
>>
>> 3) Btrfs quota only accounts
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 22:32:07 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> 2) Different limitations on exclusive/shared bytes
>Btrfs can set different limit on exclusive/shared bytes, further
>complicating the problem.
>
> 3) Btrfs quota only accounts data/metadata used by the subvolume
>It lacks
20 matches
Mail list logo
