Hey Herbert, I think you did a good job, still on a personal note, you're being too aggressive. After all I'm saying what you're saying, just in different words.
> > I agree on the concept. A third type of quota seems more natural to me > > now, however... > > however what? provide some reasons why this should be bad, > or any other attempt should be better ... > As I said, I am always open to suggestions ... I explained my however under your comment. It's not so polite to quote part of the answer and comment. The triple point '...' means a "suspension" of the phrase or that more is to come later. My however was to do with the context/group/user types of quota and their relation to guarantee allocation. I was thinking that some type awareness between the three types of quota was necessary in the kernel: > > IMHO, It should not be possible for a context to exceed it's quota when > > some users have not. This is the point of quota mechanism. Guarantee > > space on the disk and not allow for over-booking. Cheers. Dave.
