From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q291tvXq112581 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:55:58 -0600 Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:56:03 -0600 From: Ben Myers Subject: Re: df bigger than ls? Message-ID: <20120309015603.GZ8545@sgi.com> References: <20120307155439.GA23360@nsrc.org> <20120307171619.GA23557@nsrc.org> <4F57A32A.5010704@sandeen.net> <20120308021054.GM3592@dastard> <20120308162348.GT7762@sgi.com> <20120309001710.GR5091@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120309001710.GR5091@dastard> 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: Dave Chinner Cc: Brian Candler , Eric Sandeen , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 11:17:10AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 10:23:48AM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 01:10:54PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:04:26PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Alex and I discussed this problem briefly awhile ago. What is the best > > way to lose when you hit ENOSPC (project quotas) or EDQUOT in > > xfs_iomap_write_delay? You want to be fair; one user hitting his quota > > shouldn't be able to steal some other user's block reservations unless > > you really are near ENOSPC for the entire filesystem. > > > > I suggested something like... track inodes with preallocated block > > reservations in LRU order and by dquot, so that the poor fella who is at > > EDQUOT will first clean up the preallocations that resulted in quota > > being enforced, try again, and then work on preallocations of other > > users only if it can help in his situation. IIRC Alex shut me down when > > he heard LRU. ;) > > And I agree with Alex. Nothing additional needs to be tracked on top > of inodes with speculative prealloc. Just the search filter would > need to be different (i.e. only select inodes with a specific dquot > attached). Yeah, maybe not. A single list of inodes with speculative prealloc does seem a good place to start. Later maybe you would not want to scan/filter through all of them and we could add additional lists for dquots. My suggestion of using LRU was because I think that the oldest unused speculative preallocs should be the first to go. One chronic over-quota user shouldn't be able to punish everyone else. > > Now that block reservations count toward quotas the symptom will > > probably be a little different. > > Block reservations have always counted towards quotas, it's just > that they were never reported. Aw. My mistake. ;) -Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs