I vote for 3) Just tell people in documentation that hard links do not behave the way you would expect with quotas and if they don't like it they can go pound sand. What percentage of storage space consists of files with hard links to them? < 1% right? If so, why deform the quota design to work better for a very rare condition? -ben ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Vijaikumar M" <vmallika@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: "Anand Avati" <avati@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 2:21:15 AM > Subject: Quota with hard-links > > Hi All, > > This is regarding quota accounting for hard-links. Currently, accounting > is done only once for the links created within the same directory and > accounting is done separately when links are created in separate directory. > With this approach account may go wrong when rename is performed on the > hardlink files across directories. > > We are implementing one of the below mentioned policy for hard-links > when quota is enabled. > > 1) Allow creating hard-links only within same directory. > (We can hit the same problem if quota is enabled on the > pre-existing data which contains hard-links) > > 2) Allow creating hard-links only within the same branch where the limit > is set > (We can hit the same problem if quota is enabled on the > pre-existing data which contains hard-links and also when quota-limit is > set/unset) > > 3) Account for all the hard-links. > (Marker treats all hard-links as a new file) > > Please provide your feedback. > > Thanks, > Vijay > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
