<!--IssueSummary start--> <details> <summary> Everyone can contribute. [Help move this issue forward](https://handbook.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/developer-relations/contributor-success/community-contributors-workflows/#contributor-links) while earning points, leveling up and collecting rewards. </summary> - [Close this issue](https://contributors.gitlab.com/manage-issue?action=close&projectId=278964&issueIid=423842) </details> <!--IssueSummary end--> ### Problem to solve <!-- What is the user problem you are trying to solve with this issue? --> GitLab administrators that have large amount of data including git repository would like to store as much data as possible in managed object storages like S3 since they are more durable, more scalable and more affordable than block storages (or local volumes). Currently git repository, except for LFS, is the last large data set in GitLab that still need to sit in block storage. Those GitLab administrators, therefore, would wish their end-users store as much large data as possible in object-storage backed LFS. Although LFS usage (ie settings) relies upon end-users and administrators cannot force them to use it, administrators will be able to encourage the end-users to use LFS more by allowing larger capacity in LFS than block-storage backed git repository. ### Proposal <!-- Use this section to explain the feature and how it will work. It can be helpful to add technical details, design proposals, and links to related epics or issues. --> UX needs to be carefully discussed considering complexity, compatibility, etc... Below are a few of my ideas: Option 1: Add separate `LFS size limit` setting alongside with the current `Repository size limit` setting. - Max size in MiB, - 0 for unlimited, - blank for "included in the repository size limit" (compatible to current implementation) This might be too complex. Option 2: Add `Exclude LFS from repository size limit` checkbox - LFS size will be unlimited if this is checked This is fairly simple but LFS limit might be necessary?