[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FCAE6CB.8060208@oracle.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:23:39 +0800
From: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@...cle.com>
To: Kirill Korotaev <dev@...allels.com>
CC: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
"tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>,
"tinguely@....com" <tinguely@....com>,
"containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"david@...morbit.com" <david@...morbit.com>,
"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
"bpm@....com" <bpm@....com>,
"christopher.jones@...cle.com" <christopher.jones@...cle.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, "tm@....ma" <tm@....ma>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"chris.mason@...cle.com" <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: container disk quota
Hi Kirill,
On 06/02/2012 11:21 PM, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Not having looked closely at the original patchset, let me ask - is this
>>>>> feature going to be a freebie with Eric's usernamespace patches?
>>>>
>>>> It we can reach a consensus to bind quota on mount namespace for
>>>> container or other things maybe.
>>>
>>> 1. OpenVZ doesn't use mount namespaces and still has quotas per container.
>>
>> AFAICS, OpenVZ has self-released quota tools to supply this feature.
>
> but standard quota tools work inside container w/o any modifications.
> This is very important for us, cause we run unmodified distros inside.
Yes, am agree.
I can work out a new patches regarding quota tools based on mount namespace w/o any modification.
>
> Actually, this is unrelated. I meant that OpenVZ needs ability to have group quotas w/o mount namespaces.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 2. BTW, have you seen Dmitry Monakhov patches for same containers quotas via additional inode attribute? it allows to make it journaled.
>>
>> You means the directly/project quota on ext4?
>> If yes, I have observed this feature back to the end of last year in
>> EXT4 mail list.
>
> yes
>
>>
>>> How quotas are stored in your case?
>>
>> It simply cached at memory for now, it also can be tweak up to journaled
>> I think, if introducing corresponding routines quota_read/quota_write to
>> particular journal file system.
>
> just cached quotas are bad - you never sure they are correct.
> journaled quotas (as standart) are much better.
Exactly.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 3. I tend to think nowdays such quotas maybe of less need. Quota code doesn't scale well. And it's easier to put container in image file (as OpenVZ recently introduced).
>>
>> There have such requirements dropped to LXC mail list nowadays.
>> Directory quota is pretty cool and it also useful to containers perspective.
>>
>> However, that's two different quota mechanism.
>>
>> "Quota code doesn't scale well".
>> Do you means it have global locking mechanism and only quota structure
>> to bill up quota for all file systems with VFS quota enabled?
>
> yes.
That's also means there has a potential opportunity for improvement in terms of scalability.
Thanks for your info!
-Jeff
>
> Kirill
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists