The code that does the creation of 0-db and 0-db namespaces currently also create a storage pool that will be mounted as a volume in the 0-db container.
This storage pool is created with a limited size that is equal to the size of the first namespace created on it.
This leads to problem when a second namespace is create on the same 0-db since now, the 0-db is supposed to be able to write more data then what the underlying storage pools allow.
I think we can safely remove the size limitation of the storage pool since 0-db already ensure size limitation per namespace. We used to set a quote on the storage pool to be able to do some capacity planning on the disk. So changing this means we'll have to review how we do the capacity planning for the disk. Using information from 0-db them self seems like the way to go, since they will be now the only responsible for limiting storage used on disk.
The code that does the creation of 0-db and 0-db namespaces currently also create a storage pool that will be mounted as a volume in the 0-db container. This storage pool is created with a limited size that is equal to the size of the first namespace created on it.
This leads to problem when a second namespace is create on the same 0-db since now, the 0-db is supposed to be able to write more data then what the underlying storage pools allow.
Specifically there: https://github.com/threefoldtech/0-templates/blob/a3723fd691bc43867b01da070435573874ddad86/templates/node/node.py#L239-L241
I think we can safely remove the size limitation of the storage pool since 0-db already ensure size limitation per namespace. We used to set a quote on the storage pool to be able to do some capacity planning on the disk. So changing this means we'll have to review how we do the capacity planning for the disk. Using information from 0-db them self seems like the way to go, since they will be now the only responsible for limiting storage used on disk.