Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:31:56 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johan_Str=F6m?= <johan@stromnet.se> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: ZFS (and quota) Message-ID: <BE54DA53-0353-4EB3-B232-6A7193522582@stromnet.se>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello
I just installed FreeBSD-current on a box (actually upgraded 6.2 to -=20
current) to experiment a bit.
I was playing around with ZFS a bit and tried out the quota features. =20=
While doing this I noticed that it doesnt seem like you get a "disk =20
full" notice the same way as you do on a "normal" (UFS) filesystem. =20
Instead of aborting the operation with "No space left on device" it =20
just continued:
[root@devbox ~]# zpool create tank /dev/ad2
[root@devbox ~]# zpool list
NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT
tank 37.2G 111K 37.2G 0% ONLINE -
[root@devbox /tank]# zfs create -V 10M tank/set3vol
[root@devbox /tank]# newfs /dev/zvol/tank/set3vol
/dev/zvol/tank/set3vol: 10.0MB (20480 sectors) block size 16384, =20
fragment size 2048
using 4 cylinder groups of 2.52MB, 161 blks, 384 inodes.
super-block backups (for fsck -b #) at:
160, 5312, 10464, 15616
[root@devbox /tank]# mount /dev/zvol/tank/set3vol set3vol/
[root@devbox /tank]# cd set3vol/
[root@devbox /tank/set3vol]# dd if=3D/dev/urandom of=3Dtest
/tank/set3vol: write failed, filesystem is full
dd: test: No space left on device
19169+0 records in
19168+0 records out
9814016 bytes transferred in 2.276896 secs (4310261 bytes/sec)
[root@devbox /tank]# zfs create tank/set2
[root@devbox /tank/set2]# zfs set quota=3D10M tank/set2
[root@devbox /tank/set2]# zfs get quota tank/set2
NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE
tank/set2 quota 10M local
[root@devbox /tank/set2]# dd if=3D/dev/urandom of=3Dtest
^C
18563+0 records in
18562+0 records out
9503744 bytes transferred in 199.564353 secs (47622 bytes/sec)
[root@devbox /tank/set2]# zfs list tank/set2
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
tank/set2 9.15M 870K 9.15M /tank/set2
No hard stop there, it just tries to write more and more and more.. =20
Well the quota is enforced fine but shouldnt there be some more hard =20
error? I'm not sure how regular UFS quotas work though since I never =20
used them, but this seems like strange behaviour.
Anyway, how "stable" is the ZFS support and -current / Fbsd7 in =20
general now? I'm about to get a new server, 8 core xeon thingy with =20
lots of disk, so I would probably benifit very much from running =20
freebsd-7 (much better multicore performance if i've understood =20
correct). Beeing able to use ZFS for some of my jails would rock too, =20=
having individual quotas and all the other flexibilitys ZFS provides =20
(ie creating a new set for every jail and enforce individual quota).. =20=
Would anyone dare to do this on a production machine yet? Is anyone =20
doing it?
Well, it can't be said to many times, keep up the good work! Thanks =20
all fbsd developers (and others too!) :)
--
Johan Str=F6m
Stromnet
johan@stromnet.se
http://www.stromnet.se/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BE54DA53-0353-4EB3-B232-6A7193522582>