[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*snip*
IMO, the quota-per-file-system approach seems inconvenient when you get
past a handful of file systems. Unless I'm really missing something, it
just seems like a nightmare to have to deal with such a ridiculous
number of file systems.
Why? What additional per-filesystem overhead from a maintenance perspective
are you seeing?
Casper
The obvious example would be /var/mail . UFS quotas are easy. Doing the
same thing with ZFS would be (I think) impossible. You would have to
completely convert and existing system to a maildir or home directory
mail storage setup.
Other file-system-specific software could also have issues. Networker
for instance does backups per filesystem. In that situation I could then
possibly have ~3000 backup sets DAILY for a single machine (worst case,
that each file system has changes). Granted, that may not be better or
worse, just 'different' and not what I'm used to. On the other hand, I
could certainly see where that could add a ton of overhead to backup
processing.
Don't get me wrong, zfs quotas are a good thing, and could certainly be
useful in many situations. I just don't think I agree that they are a
one to one replacement for ufs quotas in terms of usability in all
situations.
-Brian
--
---------------------------------------------------
Brian H. Nelson Youngstown State University
System Administrator Media and Academic Computing
bnelson[at]cis.ysu.edu
---------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
