On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 08:18:01AM +0100, Andreas Kostyrka wrote: > Am Mit, 2002-10-30 um 22.52 schrieb Mefford, Aaron: > > I realize that I am new to the list and do not have much history, but I am > > considering the possibility of using vserver on a fairly large project and > > as such would like to at least take a moment to offer my opinion on a couple > > of items. > > > > First, I almost walked away from using the vserver option until after > > joining the list I saw that the quota issue was being actively addressed. > > Of the todo's left, quota was the biggest gap for my application. It would > > be excellent to see the others addressed but without quota it would not be > > an option. > It surely should be. Consider using LVM and sticking each vserver on > it's own logical volume. This way you can statically allocate space to > vservers and resize their needs online.
advantages: - the usual quota behaviour - a dedicated space for each vserver disadvantages: - no unification (about 200MB instead of 20MB per server) - no grace limits (overbooking) - no simple change in size (needs at least filesystem resize) - partition management for each vserver > > As to the specific post, I am not sure that the hard line of not overbooking > > is a good idea. While for many applications it would be a correct solution > > there are some where it will not. Every ISP over allocates their available > > resources. People do not care to pay for dedicated resources. > > Additionally, with most services now being offered via resellers, it seems > > unreasonable to not allow the reseller the same option. For instance, if I > > sell virtual private servers, and joe buys a VPS with the intention of > > selling individual web sites run within the VPS, I may or may not want to > > allow Joe to oversubscribe his disk s pace, possibly even on a per VPS basis. > Thats what "soft" quotas are fore. Depending upon your guidelines when > someone oversteps the softquota, either the root@main or root@vserver > should decide if an upgrade of discstorage is needed and initiate it. > > Basically if you get 500MB/1000MB hard, you can overbook in the same > ratio your own users, ... > > > > > I realize that implementing a solution that would support a hybrid approach > > raises the complexity, but I wanted to state that there is value and need > > for such an approach. > Well, the quota approach do have some problems (IMHO). Consider the > vunified system files. Do they count against the "main" root quota, or > against the "user" root quota? How is the Security Context a file > belongs to stored on disc? In my approach, the new installed server (which should be unified) counts basically against the "main" (physical) root/user quota, but any file changed or created within the vserver accounts to the context/user quota of that vserver ... best, Herbert
