Enforcing quota for root user

[Chris Murphy]

On Nov 11, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Dave Chinner <david at fromorbit.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 11:00:25AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> 
>> On Nov 11, 2014, at 8:36 AM, Stan Hoeppner <stan at hardwarefreak.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11/11/2014 04:22 AM, Cyril Scetbon wrote:
>>>> That's what I've read first, but someone showed me a sample where it works. He just told me he was using project quota. However, does it make sense ? 
>>>> I've also read somewhere else that quota is never enforced for root user (id,gid=0) that's why I was testing it ....
>>> 
>>> No, it doesn't make sense.  Why would you want to enforce quotas for root?
>> 
>> A week ago I tried this and project quotas appear to apply to root.
> 
> By intent and design. Project quotas are not a user/group based
> quota and so there is no exemption for any user.

It’s what I’d expect. I considered the documentation to be slightly misleading where is says soft and hard limits are never applied to the root user. The project quota does have a soft and hard limit. The soft limit, seemed not to apply to the root user - at least there was no soft limit warning anywhere when it was busted. But the hard limit definitely applied.

http://xfs.org/docs/xfsdocs-xml-dev/XFS_User_Guide/tmp/en-US/html/ch08s04.html


> 
>> [root at localhost project_quota_test1]# xfs_quota -c df
>> Filesystem           1K-blocks       Used  Available  Use% Pathname
>> /dev/sdb              83845120     157980   83687140    0% /xfs_local
>> /dev/sdb                102400     124928 9223372036854753280  122% /xfs_local/project_quota_test1
>> [root at localhost project_quota_test1]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test100MB bs=1M count=100
>> dd: error writing ‘test100MB’: No space left on device
>> 79+0 records in
>> 78+0 records out
>> 81788928 bytes (82 MB) copied, 0.163849 s, 499 MB/s
>> [root at localhost project_quota_test1]# xfs_quota -c df
>> Filesystem           1K-blocks       Used  Available  Use% Pathname
>> /dev/sdb              83845120     237748   83607372    0% /xfs_local
>> /dev/sdb                102400     204800 9223372036854673408  200% /xfs_local/project_quota_test1
> 
> It's gone negative. That number in hex: 0x7FFFFFFFFFFE7000
> 
> What kernel are you using, and can you outline all the way you set
> everything up to cause that to occur? Also, what is the output of a
> plain 'df -h' when it is in that state?

No that VM is gone so I can’t check it, I’d have to redo the test. Since at the time I was also testing Btrfs stuff I’m going to say it was at the oldest 3.17.1, and could have been 3.18rc1 or rc2.


Chris Murphy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs/attachments/20141111/bd8850a0/attachment.html>