add description of quotas to architecture.txt #322
Labels
No Label
0.2.0
0.3.0
0.4.0
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.7.0
0.8.0
0.9.0
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.10.0
1.10.1
1.10.2
1.10a2
1.11.0
1.12.0
1.12.1
1.13.0
1.14.0
1.15.0
1.15.1
1.2.0
1.3.0
1.4.1
1.5.0
1.6.0
1.6.1
1.7.0
1.7.1
1.7β
1.8.0
1.8.1
1.8.2
1.8.3
1.8β
1.9.0
1.9.0-s3branch
1.9.0a1
1.9.0a2
1.9.0b1
1.9.1
1.9.2
1.9.2a1
LeastAuthority.com automation
blocker
cannot reproduce
cloud-branch
code
code-dirnodes
code-encoding
code-frontend
code-frontend-cli
code-frontend-ftp-sftp
code-frontend-magic-folder
code-frontend-web
code-mutable
code-network
code-nodeadmin
code-peerselection
code-storage
contrib
critical
defect
dev-infrastructure
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
fixed
invalid
major
minor
n/a
normal
operational
packaging
somebody else's problem
supercritical
task
trivial
unknown
was already fixed
website
wontfix
worksforme
No Milestone
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Reference: tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25#322
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
and make it clear that leases, garbage collection, quotas, etc. are all not yet implemented
irc transcript:
<kpreid_> zooko: Can there be subdivisions (subleases?) of storage quotas?
Hm. Quotas are actually completely unimplemented and partially undesigned.
So I would prefer if they were clearly described as such in the docs.
Where did you find description of them?
<kpreid_> Well, I found description of leases in architecture.txt.
<kpreid_> But before I hit that, I was wondering about quotas.
Okay. So in answer to your question: I don't know. ;-)
<kpreid_> "Can server owners establish storage quotas? Obviously they can limit the whole store, but can they grant sub-spaces to object creators?"
We have a extensive, but not complete and not final, design for that.
In which design, they can.
See also [the QuotaManagement page](wiki/QuotaManagement). Perhaps architecture.txt ought to point to it?
Sounds reasonable to me.
docs updated, in changeset:ff1b2c770e1aa6f4, with a link to QuotaManagement . Does that make this ticket closeable? Maybe we should add a new ticket for "subdivisions of quotas", since that sounds pretty cool.