On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 11:00:25AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Nov 11, 2014, at 8:36 AM, Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/11/2014 04:22 AM, Cyril Scetbon wrote:
That's what I've read first, but someone showed me a sample where it works. He just told me he was using project quota. However, does it make sense ?
I've also read somewhere else that quota is never enforced for root user (id,gid=0) that's why I was testing it ....
No, it doesn't make sense. Why would you want to enforce quotas for root?
A week ago I tried this and project quotas appear to apply to root.
By intent and design. Project quotas are not a user/group based
quota and so there is no exemption for any user.
It’s what I’d expect. I considered the documentation to be slightly misleading where is says soft and hard limits are never applied to the root user. The project quota does have a soft and hard limit. The soft limit, seemed not to apply to the root user - at least there was no soft limit warning anywhere when it was busted. But the hard limit definitely applied.
[root@localhost project_quota_test1]# xfs_quota -c df
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Pathname
/dev/sdb 83845120 157980 83687140 0% /xfs_local
/dev/sdb 102400 124928 9223372036854753280 122% /xfs_local/project_quota_test1
[root@localhost project_quota_test1]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test100MB bs=1M count=100
dd: error writing ‘test100MB’: No space left on device
79+0 records in
78+0 records out
81788928 bytes (82 MB) copied, 0.163849 s, 499 MB/s
[root@localhost project_quota_test1]# xfs_quota -c df
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Pathname
/dev/sdb 83845120 237748 83607372 0% /xfs_local
/dev/sdb 102400 204800 9223372036854673408 200% /xfs_local/project_quota_test1
It's gone negative. That number in hex: 0x7FFFFFFFFFFE7000
What kernel are you using, and can you outline all the way you set
everything up to cause that to occur? Also, what is the output of a
plain 'df -h' when it is in that state?
No that VM is gone so I can’t check it, I’d have to redo the test. Since at the time I was also testing Btrfs stuff I’m going to say it was at the oldest 3.17.1, and could have been 3.18rc1 or rc2.
Chris Murphy |
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
