On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 12:12:36AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 09:08:29AM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > > As I said before, IMHO, I believe the way you are using project quotas is wrong. > > Project quotas is supposed to be used on a sub-tree based granularity, not on a > > file based granularity. But again, that's just my opinion. > > That is not true. The per-file usage was indeed the original use > case. The tree quoats implemented using the inheritance were added > much latter. They are the common use case now, but that doesn't make > other use cases wrong. Thanks for the info. I always thought project quotas were designed for directory-tree granularity, and user/group quotas as a file-based granularity. But, out of curiosity, if this is not a stupid question... If project quotas was initially designed as a per-file usage use case in mind, what would make it different from group quota for example? > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Carlos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
