It's 2008. 1 TB disk drives cost $160. Quotas are 32-bit.

[John Kozubik]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, [utf-8] Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:

> Bear in mind, also, that this is not a zero-sum game.  Pawel and Ivan
> worked on ZFS and gjournal because they felt like it.  If they hadn't
> been allowed to do so, they wouldn't have fixed quotas instead; they
> would just have gone somewhere else.


Perhaps.  Like I said, I'm excited about ZFS and the experimental work
being done - so long as the existing core remains functional.

However, I wonder how a call to action and a sense of priority would have
affected their own priorities in these past five years.  Somewhere, a
collective decision was made that these things being broken were somehow
acceptable and reasonable, and that decision was reaffirmed year after
year.

That is what I am upset about.


> > > > There is nothing new or experimental in moving quotas from 32 to
> > > > 64 bit.
> > > It breaks backward compat rather badly.  All quotas need to be
> > > recalculated, and there no way to tell whether the existing quota
> > > file is 32-bit or 64-bit.
> > As I said, nothing new or experimental.
>
> I hardly think you're qualified to judge the level of difficulty
> involved.  If you were, you'd be busy fixing the problem, not bitching
> about it.


I can do this.  It would take me 4x as long and would require auditing
and corrections greater than or equal to the time it takes (for instance)
someone like you to do it.

We have comparative advantages at particular activities.

I pursue what I am best at, you pursue what you are best at, and we
exchange them in the marketplace.  The world becomes slightly better.

We forget that this community is a marketplace because most transactions
are based on goodwill only.  It shouldn't be surprising that an offer of
something more than goodwill is accompanied by something more than meek
suggestion.