| 1 |
Am 24.04.2013 19:38, schrieb Stroller: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 24 April 2013, at 11:16, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> ... |
| 5 |
>>> Volume size so far fits my needs just fine, but that's because I've |
| 6 |
>>> never needed quotas as such. I find quotas too inflexible anyway, it's a |
| 7 |
>>> case of forcing a simplistic hardware rule into the human space and that |
| 8 |
>>> never really solves the problem properly. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Sometimes a simplistic rule is what's needed. If you are selling off-site |
| 11 |
>> storage in 1GB chunks, you need to stop people using more than they have |
| 12 |
>> paid for. Hard quotas do this, soft quotas let you warn them first, |
| 13 |
>> before things get broken. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I'm unclear how this warning would be addressed. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Your system must be more complex than I'm imagining, because I see this obvious answer of a bash script which loops through /home/*, runs `du` or `df` and sends an email to anyone who's consuming more than 90%. Obviously this needs to be adapted to circumstance. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
That only works on small systems. I have systems here where a 'du' on |
| 21 |
/home would take hours and produce massive IO wait, because there's so |
| 22 |
much data in there. |
Archives