From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 1 13:59:06 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC4B106567C; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:59:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rebehn@ant.uni-bremen.de) Received: from antsrv1.ant.uni-bremen.de (antsrv1.ant.uni-bremen.de [134.102.176.16]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC10A8FC1C; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:59:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rebehn@ant.uni-bremen.de) Received: from bremerhaven.ant.uni-bremen.de ([134.102.176.10]) by antsrv1.ant.uni-bremen.de with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1KDg4C-000NEc-O9; Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:38:44 +0200 Message-ID: <486A3365.7020500@ant.uni-bremen.de> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:38:45 +0200 From: Heinrich Rebehn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.13) Gecko/20080313 SeaMonkey/1.1.9 (Ubuntu-1.1.9+nobinonly-0ubuntu1) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Reilly References: <20080628132632.R1807@kozubik.com> <864p7bw387.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20080630073539.U1807@kozubik.com> <4868FB2F.7010204@FreeBSD.org> <20080630085612.G1807@kozubik.com> <20080701035755.GA23685@duncan.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <20080701035755.GA23685@duncan.reilly.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= , Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: It's 2008. 1 TB disk drives cost $160. Quotas are 32-bit. X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:59:06 -0000 Andrew Reilly wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 09:05:48AM -0700, John Kozubik wrote: >> That point is well taken. However, regardless of the adoption rate, I >> _do_ believe that there is still a qualitative difference between quotas >> and, for instance, ZFS - in terms of "coreness". > > One qualitative difference is that lots of people seem to be > interested in ZFS. I haven't seen any mention of quotas for > many years. In fact, I was under a vague impression that they > hadn't worked since UFS2, and that that was still the case > because no-one cared. They *do* work and we do use them. You need them if lots of users share a common disk. The fact that they are not mentioned, only means that they "simply work". > >> I believe this because of the historical presence of this functionality >> and the reasonable expectation that it represents a basic function of a >> unix-based OS (not just FreeBSD). > > There are lots of historical functionalities that are no longer > part of the OS. Things change. > > Now it may be that quotas are indeed useful enough to > be salvaged in a geric fashion (applicable to arbitrary > filesystems, as has been mentioned). Not my call: I'm certainly > not going to do the work. But with the level of use in recent > years, maybe the right answer is to consign them to the bin > (or an optional GEOM layer or whatever), along with tty line > disciplines, uucp, isdn and X10? With this reasoning you could also drop the shell and tell people to use kde. BTW, X10 has been replaced by X11 ;-) Cheers, Heinrich