On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:08:12 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > It's a shame there appears to be no equivalent of a soft quota in ZFS. > > Maybe it is the use of the term quota that is misleading, when in > > reality it is more akin to volume size. > > "quota" is this context is indeed a misleading term. > > Volume size so far fits my needs just fine, but that's because I've > never needed quotas as such. I find quotas too inflexible anyway, it's a > case of forcing a simplistic hardware rule into the human space and that > never really solves the problem properly.
Sometimes a simplistic rule is what's needed. If you are selling off-site storage in 1GB chunks, you need to stop people using more than they have paid for. Hard quotas do this, soft quotas let you warn them first, before things get broken. > The problem quotas try to solve is "don't let users use more than their > fair share of stuff; all the kids must play nicely on the playground" That sounds reasonable to me. -- Neil Bothwick ISDN: It Still Does Nothing
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
