From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from pepin.polanet.pl ([193.34.52.2]:45354 "EHLO pepin.polanet.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727422AbeHJKCW (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2018 06:02:22 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 09:33:41 +0200 From: Tomasz Pala To: Andrei Borzenkov Cc: Qu Wenruo , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Report correct filesystem usage / limits on BTRFS subvolumes with quota Message-ID: <20180810073340.GB5473@polanet.pl> References: <0059606f-88bf-c919-450b-bf08e184b5a2@mailbox.org> <20180809174811.GA27001@polanet.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 07:03:18 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: >> So - the limit set on any user > > Does btrfs support per-user quota at all? I am aware only of per-subvolume quotas. Well, this is a kind of deceptive word usage in "post-truth" times. In this case both "user" and "quota" are not valid... - by "user" I ment general word, not unix-user account; such user might possess some container running full-blown guest OS, - by "quota" btrfs means - I guess, dataset-quotas? In fact: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Quota_support "Quota support in BTRFS is implemented at a subvolume level by the use of quota groups or qgroup" - what the hell is "quota group" and how it differs from qgroup? According to btrfs-quota(8): "The quota groups (qgroups) are managed by the subcommand btrfs qgroup(8)" - they are the same... just completely different from traditional "quotas". My suggestion would be to completely remove the standalone "quota" word from btrfs documentation - there is no "quota", just "subvolume quota" or "qgroup" supported. -- Tomasz Pala