Re: sockets and HAMMER

[Erik Wikström <Erik-wikstrom@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2008-07-05 23:54, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :Well, internal hard disks under 100G are getting hard to find, so I doubt
> :this is going to be a huge issue.  It should be documented.
> :
> :There's also the possibility that things could be mounted under /, instead
> :of multiple partitions.
> 
>     Yah.  I think what we are moving towards is more of a one or
>     two-filesystem model (I think having a separate root is still important),
>     but to make it totally practical we need to be able to set overall
>     space limits on a per-PFS basis.  (PFS == HAMMER's pseudo filesystems).
> 
>     This won't happen in the first release but it certainly isn't hard
>     to accomplish.  The advantage of it is that limits applied to PFSs
>     are soft and could be adjusted up or down at any time.  And since
>     we support 65536 PFSs per HAMMER filesystem the whole mechanism could
>     be used to soft-partition a huge filesystem for use by different
>     machines / departments / users / whatever.
> 
>     No, no quotas for HAMMER yet :-)  I just don't think that stuff belongs
>     in the filesystem.  We need a generic quota and MAC layer in the kernel
>     proper.  The MAC layer implemented in FreeBSD is horrible, I think
>     we could do a lot better particularly with PFS to rough-cut the
>     security domains.

Question: Is there a minimum recommended size of a PFS, or could you
create one per user? While it is not a complete replacement for quota it
would at least solve some of the same problems.

-- 
Erik Wikström