<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><div>On Nov 11, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Dave Chinner <<a href="mailto:david@fromorbit.com">david@fromorbit.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 11:00:25AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>On Nov 11, 2014, at 8:36 AM, Stan Hoeppner <<a href="mailto:stan@hardwarefreak.com">stan@hardwarefreak.com</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">On 11/11/2014 04:22 AM, Cyril Scetbon wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">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 ? <br>I've also read somewhere else that quota is never enforced for root user (id,gid=0) that's why I was testing it ....<br></blockquote><br>No, it doesn't make sense. Why would you want to enforce quotas for root?<br></blockquote><br>A week ago I tried this and project quotas appear to apply to root.<br></blockquote><br>By intent and design. Project quotas are not a user/group based<br>quota and so there is no exemption for any user.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>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.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://xfs.org/docs/xfsdocs-xml-dev/XFS_User_Guide/tmp/en-US/html/ch08s04.html">http://xfs.org/docs/xfsdocs-xml-dev/XFS_User_Guide/tmp/en-US/html/ch08s04.html</a></div><div><br></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><br><blockquote type="cite">[root@localhost project_quota_test1]# xfs_quota -c df<br>Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Pathname<br>/dev/sdb 83845120 157980 83687140 0% /xfs_local<br>/dev/sdb 102400 124928 9223372036854753280 122% /xfs_local/project_quota_test1<br>[root@localhost project_quota_test1]# dd if=/dev/zero of=test100MB bs=1M count=100<br>dd: error writing ‘test100MB’: No space left on device<br>79+0 records in<br>78+0 records out<br>81788928 bytes (82 MB) copied, 0.163849 s, 499 MB/s<br>[root@localhost project_quota_test1]# xfs_quota -c df<br>Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Pathname<br>/dev/sdb 83845120 237748 83607372 0% /xfs_local<br>/dev/sdb 102400 204800 9223372036854673408 200% /xfs_local/project_quota_test1<br></blockquote><br>It's gone negative. That number in hex: 0x7FFFFFFFFFFE7000<br><br>What kernel are you using, and can you outline all the way you set<br>everything up to cause that to occur? Also, what is the output of a<br>plain 'df -h' when it is in that state?</blockquote><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Chris Murphy</div></body></html>