Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262138AbUFZEDg (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:03:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265944AbUFZEDg (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:03:36 -0400 Received: from chnmfw01.eth.net ([202.9.145.21]:62988 "EHLO ETH.NET") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262138AbUFZEDe (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:03:34 -0400 Message-ID: <40DCF598.6000206@eth.net> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 09:33:36 +0530 From: Amit Gud User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040115 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Fao, Sean" CC: Alan , Pavel Machek , Horst von Brand , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Elastic Quota File System (EQFS) References: <004e01c45abd$35f8c0b0$b18309ca@home> <200406251444.i5PEiYpq008174@eeyore.valparaiso.cl> <20040625162537.GA6201@elf.ucw.cz> <1088181893.6558.12.camel@zontar.fnordora.org> <40DC625F.3010403@eth.net> <40DC8981.7090703@dynextechnologies.com> In-Reply-To: <40DC8981.7090703@dynextechnologies.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2004 03:55:51.0203 (UTC) FILETIME=[78D5F730:01C45B31] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1524 Lines: 38 Fao, Sean wrote: > Amit Gud wrote: > >> It cannot be denied that there _are_ applications for such a system >> that we already discussed and theres a class of users who will find >> the system useful. > > > > I personally see no use whatsoever. Why not just allocate 100% of the > file system to everybody and ignore quota's, entirely? Each user will > use whatever he/she requires and when space starts to run out, users > will manually clean up what they don't need. > We should get our basics right first. We _do_ need quotas!! Without any quota system how are we going to avoid a malicious user from taking away all the space to keep other people starving? In EQFS also this can happen, but we are giving *controlled flexibility* to the user. He is having some stretching power but not beyond a certain limit. And do you think users are sincere enough to clean up there files when they are done? > I am totally against the automatic deletion of files and believe that > all users will _eventually_ walk in on a Monday morning to find out > that the OS took it upon itself to delete a file that was flagged as > elastic, that shouldn't have been. User is the king, he decides what files should be elastic and what not. This can always be controlled. AG - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/