From: Herbert Poetzl (herbert_at_13thfloor.at)
Date: Thu 31 Oct 2002 - 14:19:48 GMT
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 09:13:48AM -0500, Dave wrote:
> Hey Herbert,
> 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
that might be right, and again, this is nothing personal,
because I don't know you much, but look at it this way:
- what progress has quota made in the past half year?
(regarding vserver or not)
- how many developers (besides Jacques) actively
work on this project? or related parts?
- what "was" the usual vserver list topic?
> > > 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.
did I leave out any part of your post (except for the signature)?
(I don't think so, if yes, I am sorry)
> 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.