On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 09:36:36AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > On 12/15/2012 04:25 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:13:00AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > >> On 12/12/2012 09:25 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > >>> On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 11:47:57AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > >> Are you suggesting we > >> set a default soft limit value on all quotas with a hard limit? > > > > Yes. Your code already does this, effectively, by treating files > > that have no softlimit set as always being over the soft limit. > > True, but only with respect to preallocation throttling. IOW, presumably > there are other reasons to set (or not set) a soft limit from an > administrative standpoint. Though I guess there's no reason to have a > timer with no soft limit, so perhaps it doesn't matter. I'll play with it... TO clarify, I'm talking about a soft limit only for preallocation throttling purposes, not a general, implicit soft limit for everything. > To further clarify, is there any special behavior intended for a soft > limit set in this manner? For example, the user creates quota, sets a > hard limit and we set the new associated default soft limit. Should the > new soft limit behave precisely as if the soft limit was set by the user > from this point forward, or could it for example, remain volatile to the > hard limit unless a soft limit value is explicitly set by the user > (i.e., it is not written to disk and it is recalculated in memory if the > filesystem is remounted; it is re-adjusted automatically if the hard > limit is adjusted iff soft-limit hasn't been set explicitly, etc.). See above - the implicit soft limit I suggested is only for prealloc throttling. Probaly better to call the two variabled "q_prealloc_hard_limit" and "q_prealloc_soft_limit" or something like that so that so it's explicit what their use is... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
