From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q1T8aZb4260309 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:36:37 -0600 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id uSsFOgn5lgCMzBXE (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:36:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:36:33 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: Question about project quota with container Message-ID: <20120229083633.GA14241@infradead.org> References: <4F4D8413.4050709@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F4D8413.4050709@oracle.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Jeff Liu Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com > I was wondering if other file system will also implement project quota > based on these two configuration files in the future? In other words, is > it a standard? The have been a few attempts at roughly similar quotas for ext4, but they were incompatible enough to not reuse any infrastructure like this. > > Alternatively, maybe the project path and ID can be setup at cgroup > control files too, the following things could be implemented like > "xfsprogs/quota/edit.c", but I would put aside this idea for now. Assigning the project IDs in the cgroups code sounds fine to me. To make peoples life's easier it might be good idea to keep the /etc/projects and /etc/projid files uptodate even from that code. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs