Hello,
I am going to set up a new file server ("smb" and "nfs")
machine for
the local network of my former school.
Therefore I've just downloaded and successfully compiled
"linux-2.4.9-ac5" (including "disk quota support" and, of
course,
support for "ext3 file system").
I've read the statement:
| ...
|
| The quota code in the -ac kernels is very different, and once that gets
| merged into Linus' tree we shall continue development and testing of
| quota code for ext3.
|
| ...
|
| We only test quota code against the -ac kernels - this is supported
| and works well.
which is given on:
http://www.uow.edu.au/~andrewm/linux/ext3/ext3-usage.html
When setting up the disk quotas I have to choice between two available
quota formats:
vfsold - original quota format
and
vfsv0 - new quota format
Now, my question is: Does the above quoted statment have something to do
with the selection of the quota format? That means: Do I have to use the
new format "vfsv0" to avoid conflicts with "ext3" or is also
the
"vfsold"-code that comes with Alan Cox' kernels rewritten so
"vfsold"
would not influence "ext3" in a negative way?
I suppose that SAMBA (2.2.1a and 2.0.10) seems not to be able to get the
available disk space from disk quotas when using "vfsv0". For now
I've
installed "vfsv0", but SAMBA simply shows the free space of the
specified
partition, although the user has got a much lower disk quota (of course,
SAMBA has been configured "--with-quotas"). I must admit that I have
not
tested "vfsold" on this machine, yet.
So my question: Do I have to expect any (known) problems when using the
"vfsold" quota format together with "ext3"?
The whole system is running on software RAID (level 1), but I don't expect
that this interferes with "ext3" on 2.4 kernels.
My last question: is there anybody who is using "ext3", "disk
quotas"
and software RAID in a production environment?
Regards,
Steffen
