On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 09:13:48AM -0500, Dave wrote: > 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.
that might be right, and again, this is nothing personal, because I don't know you much, but look at it this way: - what progress has quota made in the past half year? (regarding vserver or not) - how many developers (besides Jacques) actively work on this project? or related parts? - what "was" the usual vserver list topic? > > > 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. did I leave out any part of your post (except for the signature)? (I don't think so, if yes, I am sorry) > 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. > best, Herbert
