On Thursday 22 March 2007 02:41pm, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 13:23 -0400, Oisin Feeley wrote: > > On 3/22/07, Simo Sorce <ssorce redhat com> wrote: > > > > [snip condition which must be true for any quota scheme ;)] > > > > > > Also broken if you have > 10-20 projects, becomes unmanageable. > > > > Unmanageable because of the claimed fsck speed issue mentioned by the > > OP or unmanageable because the admin would have to keep track of his > > large number of logical volumes? > > Unmanageable because they are too many. > Unmanageable because it is a too rigid policy and you don't even have > soft quotas No true. Linux quotas support both soft and hard limits, though I never set soft to anything but the same value as hard, personally (some do and it is useful). > Unmanageable because if the needs of some groups change you have to > actually resize file systems to give the more space Which points out that quotas are not needed at all if you just do per-project LVs. When they need space, run lvextend and resize the filesystem. That's it and you don't have to unmount anything. > It's a hackish mess :) > Group quotas are easier. Can be. -- Lamont Peterson <lamont gurulabs com> Senior Instructor Guru Labs, L.C. [ http://www.GuruLabs.com/ ] NOTE: All messages from this email address should be digitally signed with my 0xDC0DD409 GPG key. It is available on the pgp.mit.edu keyserver as well as other keyservers that sync with MIT's.
Description: PGP signature