UFS Soft partitions

If we didn't have to created quotas for each file system I would go with
the one big file system.  But the problem is we have user accounts under
/homea, /homec, /homec, /homei, /homem, /homep, /homes, /homet, and this
structure will be rsynced over to our new box, so the migration will be
a lot easier if we keep the same structure..

I guess the only way to have one quota file system for all users would
be that have /homea ... /homet  as directories underneath a huge file
system that we set a quota under, but that would change the path for
user accounts, and make the migration rsync a little more work to code.

Peter Tribble wrote:
>> Thank your for the information much appreciated.. Why do you not like to
>> use soft partitions?  Do you see a problem that could hinder us going
>> this route or a disadvantage?
>
> I just wondered why you intended creating 7 or 8 small filesystems
> rather than just 1 medium-size one and sharing the space among all
> the filesystems. The snag with creating many filesystems in this
> way is that you need to leave a certain amount of free space in
> each filesystem, which leads to wastage (the pooled storage model
> of zfs solves this very nicely). And you often end up with one of the
> filesystems being full and lots of unused space in the other filesystems.
>
> One reason for splitting it up is damage limitation - filling one 
> filesystem
> up doesn't affect others. However, if you're using quotas then this 
> should
> be much less of an issue, and the one big lump is much less likely to
> fill up.
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: wheakory.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 102 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/sysadmin-discuss/attachments/20070328/4c423b27/wheakory.vcf