next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Before we get too involved in 'solving' this pressing question,... If you send mail to someone who is over-quota in mail you're simply making the problem worse... Dial-in text users already get the appropriate messages so anything else you do with respect to their accounts is probably unnecessary and as noted above in danger of making the problem worse... PPP users typically don't need to be notified about mail quota problems because they download their mail and it does not stay on our system... Individual PPP users find about home quota problems when they try to FTP files in and the write fails... and they can deal with it then... we make no undertaking that indivdual users can run cgi-scripts that might add data/files to their file area, So the only reason to do this is to justify having IP's under hard Unix quotas particularly in the home directory area which I still think is essentially wrong-headed... We promote the availability of IP-CGI as a service for our information provider accounts... so we have some responsibility to ensure that it works, and that they are not unpleasantly surprised to discover that their data collection stopped a week ago because they went over a hard quota and the script failed without warning... In all the discussion about quotas for IP's I've heard no mention about the number of files permitted... is the proposal simply to pick some arbitrary number out of the air and then charge an IP who has a lot of small files and goes over the file quota limit, or has this been even thought about... --- Even back when hard drives were _VERY_, _VERY_ expensive we had no problem providing an Information Provider with all of the disk space they could use... I can accept that unlimited disk space for a user/IP represents a black hole (empty entry) in the list of services and this would confuse clients and staff equally.... But even if we associate some nominal disk storage with a particular level of service there are several ways of dealing with IP's that exceed that threashold without imposing hard unix limits. I'm still not aware of any compelling reason to focus our attention on making sure that an IP uses not one bit nor byte more than their allotment... We have speed limits on the highway, human safety is in involved, however it wouldn't make sense to configure cars to explode if they go over the speed limit in an effort to protect everyone else... While the lack of a hard quota may appear to be a significant problem at the bean-counting level, at the technical level we always have had lots of disk space available and from a pure technical perspective this is quite low priority... I find it hard to attribute any significant level of priority to this at all. We'd be better off starting to undo the mess that putting IP's in the 'home' tree is creating. BTW quota -q is not supported under Solaris... ;-) david potter On Wed, 3 May 2000, Chris Watt wrote: > At 10:54 PM 5/2/00 -0300, Andrew D. Wright wrote: > > The idea is to write a script that checks all /home/ directory > >quotas against what they should have, then mail the account when they go > >over quota with a little message telling them what they can do to remedy > >the situation. > > Would something as simple as > > if quota -q $homedir $username; then > sendmail -foffice@chebucto.ns.ca $useraddress < overquota.txt > fi > if quota -q /var/spool/mail $username; then > sendmail -foffice@chebucto.ns.ca $useraddress < overmailquota.txt > fi > > > > work? AFAIK there is no point in attempting to distinguish between over > hard-quota and over soft-quota, since we cannot deliver to someone over > hard-quota anyway, right? > > Also, am I correct in thinking that > echo `basename $homedir` @chebucto.ns.ca > is going to be the right e-mail address? If so it could just run in a for > loop on /home/* without any need for extra tables I would expect (failing > that, a two column translation table with code to default to the address > generated from the home dir would be fairly easy to set up. > > It may be the case that some of this is broken under Solaris, but it works > in Linux. > -- > > Who is this General Failure, and why is he reading my hard disk? >
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects