From: Dave (djp_at_comm.it)
Date: Thu 31 Oct 2002 - 14:13:48 GMT
I think you did a good job, still on a personal note, you're being too
aggressive. After all I'm saying what you're saying, just in different
> > I agree on the concept. A third type of quota seems more natural to me
> > now, however...
> however what? provide some reasons why this should be bad,
> or any other attempt should be better ...
> As I said, I am always open to suggestions ...
I explained my however under your comment. It's not so polite to quote
part of the answer and comment. The triple point '...' means a
"suspension" of the phrase or that more is to come later.
My however was to do with the context/group/user types of quota and
their relation to guarantee allocation. I was thinking that some type
awareness between the three types of quota was necessary in the kernel:
> > IMHO, It should not be possible for a context to exceed it's quota when
> > some users have not. This is the point of quota mechanism. Guarantee
> > space on the disk and not allow for over-booking.