[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I assume that ZFS quotas are enforced even if the current >> size and space free is not included in the user visible 'df'. >> Is that not true? >> >> Presumably applications get some unexpected error when the >> quota limit is hit since the client OS does not know the real >> amount of space free. >> > > In my experience, I simply couldn't implement Solaris-level quotas at > all for ZFS filesystems. > > That's my understanding also. I'm not clear (but I think I can guess) on the exact difference between reservations, and quotas but from what I understand ZFS implements it's own 'Tree Quotas' , that limit the space consumed by a directory and everything below it. It does not (currently?) support a tradtional unix "User/Group Quotas", where the space consumed by files owned by a user or group are limited no matter where in the file system the are located.
I don't think User/Group quotas have been ruled out, or are technically not feasible. If I recallcorrectly, I think they have just been left on the low priority list since the consensus of the developers is that Tree quotas are enough for now, especially if you follow the advice to create a ZFS for each user. This works fine for Home Dirs since for the most part only one user will be writing below that directory. However this doesn't really help where you want multiple users or groups to write to the same dir. tree, and want to stop the users or groups from consuming all the space and blocking the others from using the share space. -Kyle > johnS > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
