Richard Elling wrote:
Anyone who is really clever will easily get past a quota, especially
at a university -- triple that probability for an engineering college.
I studied Computing Science at Glasgow University (Scotland) the
department policy was NOT to use disk quotas. This was on SunOS 4.
On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 10:18 +1000, Nathan Kroenert wrote:
> Just piqued my interest on this one -
>
> How would we enforce quotas of sorts in large filesystems that are
> shared? I can see times when I might want lots of users to use the same
> directory (and thus, same filesystem) but still want
Just piqued my interest on this one -
How would we enforce quotas of sorts in large filesystems that are
shared? I can see times when I might want lots of users to use the same
directory (and thus, same filesystem) but still want to limit the amount
of space each user can consume.
Thoughts?
Nat
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 03:41:13PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote:
> On the topic of ZFS snapshots:
>
> does the snapshot just capture the changed _blocks_, or does it
> effectively copy the entire file if any block has changed?
Incremental sends capture changed blocks.
Snapshots capture all of the
On the topic of ZFS snapshots:
does the snapshot just capture the changed _blocks_, or does it
effectively copy the entire file if any block has changed?
That is, assuming that the snapshot (destination) stays inside the same
pool space.
-Erik
___
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 16:43 -0500, James Dickens wrote:
> On 5/18/06, Gregory Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 12:12 -0700, Eric Schrock wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 11:42:58AM -0700, Charlie wrote:
> > > > Sorry to revive such an old thread.. but I'm struggling he
Bill Moore wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 12:46:28PM -0700, Charlie wrote:
>> Eric Schrock wrote:
Using traditional tools or ZFS send/receive?
>> Traditional (amanda). I'm not seeing a way to dump zfs file systems to
>> tape without resorting to 'zfs send' being piped through gtar or
>> some
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 12:46:28PM -0700, Charlie wrote:
> Eric Schrock wrote:
> > > Using traditional tools or ZFS send/receive?
>
> Traditional (amanda). I'm not seeing a way to dump zfs file systems to
> tape without resorting to 'zfs send' being piped through gtar or
> something. Even then, th
On 5/18/06, Gregory Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 12:12 -0700, Eric Schrock wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 11:42:58AM -0700, Charlie wrote:
> > Sorry to revive such an old thread.. but I'm struggling here.
> >
> > I really want to use zfs. Fssnap, SVM, etc all have drawb
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 12:46:28PM -0700, Charlie wrote:
> Traditional (amanda). I'm not seeing a way to dump zfs file systems to
> tape without resorting to 'zfs send' being piped through gtar or
> something. Even then, the only thing I could restore was an entire file
> system. (We frequently res
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 02:23:55PM -0600, Gregory Shaw wrote:
> I'd agree except for backups. If the pools are going to grow beyond a
> reasonable-to-backup and reasonable-to-restore threshold (measured by
> the backup window), it would be practical to break it into smaller
> pools.
Speaking of b
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 12:12 -0700, Eric Schrock wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 11:42:58AM -0700, Charlie wrote:
> > Sorry to revive such an old thread.. but I'm struggling here.
> >
> > I really want to use zfs. Fssnap, SVM, etc all have drawbacks. But I
> > work for a University, where everyone
Eric Schrock wrote:
> > On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 11:42:58AM -0700, Charlie wrote:
>> >> to create > 10K partitions. Is that really your intention?
> >
> > Yes. You'd group them all under a single filesystem in the hierarchy,
> > allowing you to manage NFS share options, compression, and more from
> Why can't we just have user quotas in zfs? :)
+1 to that. I support a couple environments with group/user quotas that cannot
move to ZFS since they serve brain-dead apps that read/write from a single
directory.
I also agree that using even a few hundred mountpoints is more tedious than
usin
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 11:42:58AM -0700, Charlie wrote:
> Sorry to revive such an old thread.. but I'm struggling here.
>
> I really want to use zfs. Fssnap, SVM, etc all have drawbacks. But I
> work for a University, where everyone has a quota. I'd literally have
> to create > 10K partitions. Is
Sorry to revive such an old thread.. but I'm struggling here.
I really want to use zfs. Fssnap, SVM, etc all have drawbacks. But I work for a
University, where everyone has a quota. I'd literally have to create > 10K
partitions. Is that really your intention? Of course, backups become a huge
pa
16 matches
Mail list logo
