>>>> >>>> Not having looked closely at the original patchset, let me ask - is this >>>> feature going to be a freebie with Eric's usernamespace patches? >>> >>> It we can reach a consensus to bind quota on mount namespace for >>> container or other things maybe. >> >> 1. OpenVZ doesn't use mount namespaces and still has quotas per container. > > AFAICS, OpenVZ has self-released quota tools to supply this feature. but standard quota tools work inside container w/o any modifications. This is very important for us, cause we run unmodified distros inside. Actually, this is unrelated. I meant that OpenVZ needs ability to have group quotas w/o mount namespaces. > >> >> 2. BTW, have you seen Dmitry Monakhov patches for same containers quotas via additional inode attribute? it allows to make it journaled. > > You means the directly/project quota on ext4? > If yes, I have observed this feature back to the end of last year in > EXT4 mail list. yes > >> How quotas are stored in your case? > > It simply cached at memory for now, it also can be tweak up to journaled > I think, if introducing corresponding routines quota_read/quota_write to > particular journal file system. just cached quotas are bad - you never sure they are correct. journaled quotas (as standart) are much better. > >> >> 3. I tend to think nowdays such quotas maybe of less need. Quota code doesn't scale well. And it's easier to put container in image file (as OpenVZ recently introduced). > > There have such requirements dropped to LXC mail list nowadays. > Directory quota is pretty cool and it also useful to containers perspective. > > However, that's two different quota mechanism. > > "Quota code doesn't scale well". > Do you means it have global locking mechanism and only quota structure > to bill up quota for all file systems with VFS quota enabled? yes. Kirill _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
